Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Topic: Naive set theory
Replies: 4   Last Post: Apr 9, 2013 3:02 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Zaljohar@gmail.com

Posts: 2,665
Registered: 6/29/07
Re: Naive set theory
Posted: Apr 9, 2013 2:04 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Apr 9, 5:03 pm, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...@uta.fi> wrote:
> Zuhair <zaljo...@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.koskensi...@uta.fi)
>
>

Yes, your response and Smaill's are pretty much the same. Those proofs
are trivial ones, they depend on Modus Ponens where from P and P->Q we
infer Q, so if P is false and is a theorem then it qualifies as a step
in the proof, then since P->Q is trivially true then it is a theorem,
then obviously Q is a theorem whatever Q is. BUT this proof is TRIVIAL
and of no importance since we already know that P is **clearly**
false. I want a non trivial proof, i.e. a proof containing no step
that is TRIVIALLY false. On the other hand the proof of the existence
of an empty set is SHORTER it is a direct result of naive
comprehension, and it contains NO trivial step as far as I can see.
Not only that the proof about non existence of the empty set can be
used to prove the contrary result or any theorem, which is of no
importance, while the proof of existence of the empty set is not
shared with any other theorem proved, so it is a genuine proof. One
can easily see that the proof by principle of explosion is not Content-
full, i.e. not related specifically to the result it proves.

This calls for a re-definition of what a *Proof* is. But I don't know
if this is possible.

Zuhair



Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.