Russell's paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - The Diigo Meta page

• 03 Jan 14
  

  mankla

  _my universe _Appendix Ref_1

• 25 Sep 13
  

  saanyaj
  • Russell's paradox
• 04 Jan 13
  

  Alien Samadhi

  english to read paradox ontological project

• 07 Nov 12
  

  Francisco Gomes

  philosophy mathematics Russell's paradox

• 26 Mar 12
  

  graju256

  wiki maths

• 21 Nov 10
  

  amandasymnds

  Uncategorized

• 01 Apr 10
  

  Robert Redl
  • In the foundations of mathematics, Russell's paradox (also known as Russell's antinomy), discovered by Bertrand Russell in 1901, showed that the naive set theory of Richard Dedekind and Frege leads to a contradiction.
• 24 Feb 10
  

  Julian Baldwin

  Paradox

• 06 Nov 09
  

  nealrichter

  mathematics logic philosophy paradox russell set theory

• 23 Oct 09
  

  Dung Huynh

  More detailed than http://suitcaseofdreams.net/paradox_russell.htm

  paradox mathematics Delicious

• 14 Nov 08
  
  • a set containing sets that are not members of themselves.
  • The problem arises when it is considered whether R is an element of itself. If R is an element of R, then according to the definition R is not an element of R. If R is not an element of R, then R has to be an element of R, again by its very definition.
• 10 Aug 08
  

  Alber van Zyl

  bertrandrussel paradox mathematics wiki

• 12 Jun 08
  

  ron bowden

  bertrand_russell paradox ser_theory normal_set abnormal_set

• 06 Aug 06
  

  Phil

  mathematics philosophy

  • Russell's paradox (also known as Russell's antinomy) is a paradox discovered by Bertrand Russell in 1901 which shows that the naive set theory of Frege is contradictory. Consider the set M to be "The set of all sets that do not contain themselves as members". Formally: A is an element of M if and only if A is not an element of A.

     

     

    

     

     

    In Frege's system, M would be a well-defined set. Does M contain itself? If it does, it is not a member of M according to the definition. On the other hand, if we assume that M does not contain itself, then it has to be a member of M, again according to the very definition of M. Therefore, the statements "M is a member of M" and "M is not a member of M" both lead to contradictions

Would you like to comment?

Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.