Although Russell’s paradox has the virtue of simplicity, is it a distraction from other paradoxes of naive set theory?

Contents

What is Russell’s paradox in set theory?

In mathematical logic, Russell’s paradox (also known as Russell’s antinomy) is a set-theoretic paradox discovered by the British philosopher and mathematician Bertrand Russell in 1901. Russell’s paradox shows that every set theory that contains an unrestricted comprehension principle leads to contradictions.

Also known as the Russell-Zermelo paradox, the paradox arises within naïve set theory by considering the set of all sets that are not members of themselves. Such a set appears to be a member of itself if and only if it is not a member of itself. Hence the paradox.

What are the 3 types of paradoxes?

Three types of paradoxes

• Falsidical – Logic based on a falsehood.
• Veridical – Truthful.
• Antinomy – A contradiction, real or apparent, between two principles or conclusions, both of which seem equally justified.

How do you prove Russell’s paradox?

if the barber shaves himself, then the barber is an example of “those men who do not shave themselves,” a contradiction; if the barber does not shave himself, then the barber is an example of “those men who do not shave themselves,” and thus the barber shaves himself–also a contradiction.

What is the Russell barber paradox?

Answer: If the barber shaves himself then he is a man on the island who shaves himself hence he, the barber, does not shave himself. If the barber does not shave himself then he is a man on the island who does not shave himself hence he, the barber, shaves him(self).

How many types of paradoxes are there?

There are four generally accepted types of paradox. The first is called a veridical paradox and describes a situation that is ultimately, logically true, but is either senseless or ridiculous.

Why is naive set theory naive?

It is “naive” in that the language and notations are those of ordinary informal mathematics, and in that it does not deal with consistency or completeness of the axiom system. Likewise, an axiomatic set theory is not necessarily consistent: not necessarily free of paradoxes.

Why is the barber paradox A paradox?

However if he does shave himself then he must be one of those men that don't shave themselves because he shaves all and only men that don't shave themselves therefore he must not shave himself.

Is there a solution to the barber paradox?

In its original form, this paradox has no solution, as no such barber can exist. The question is a loaded question that assumes the existence of the barber, which is false. There are other non-paradoxical variations, but those are different.

What’s the riddle of the two barbers?

Answer: You cleverly deduce that the first, well-groomed barber couldn’t possibly cut his own hair; therefore, he must get his hair cut by the second barber. And, though the second barbershop is filthy, it’s because the second barber has so many customers that there’s simply no time to clean.

What are some examples of paradox?

Here are some thought-provoking paradox examples:

• Save money by spending it.
• If I know one thing, it’s that I know nothing.
• This is the beginning of the end.
• Deep down, you’re really shallow.
• I’m a compulsive liar.
• “Men work together whether they work together or apart.” – Robert Frost.