Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
NCTM or The Math Forum.
|
|
|
Math Forum
»
Discussions
»
sci.math.*
»
sci.math
Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.
Topic:
Naive set theory
Replies:
4
Last Post:
Apr 9, 2013 3:02 PM
|
 |
|
|
|
Re: Naive set theory
Posted:
Apr 9, 2013 10:03 AM
|
|
Zuhair <zaljohar@gmail.com> writes:
> What's the proof of the following in naive set theory?
>
> Not exist x. x is empty
By Russell's paradox, there exists a set R such that R in R and R not
in R. By ex falso quodlibet, there is no set with no elements.
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta@uta.fi)
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
|
|
|
|
