Burali–Forti paradox: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Content added Content deleted
OfficialURL (talk | contribs) (Created page with "The '''Burali–Forti paradox''' refers to the theorem that there is no set containing all von Neumann ordinals. Essentially, if there were such a set, then it would itself be a von Neumann ordinal, contradicting well-foundedness (or more directly the axiom of regularity).") |
RhubarbJayde (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The '''Burali–Forti paradox''' refers to the theorem that there is no set containing all [[von Neumann ordinal]]s. Essentially, if there were such a set, then it would itself be a von Neumann ordinal, contradicting |
The '''Burali–Forti paradox''' refers to the theorem that there is no set containing all [[von Neumann ordinal]]s. Essentially, if there were such a set, then it would itself be a von Neumann ordinal, contradicting the axiom of foundation, which implies no set can be an element of itself. In second-order theories such as Morse-Kelley set theory, this issue is circumvented by making the collection of ordinals a proper class, while all ordinals are sets (and proper classes can not contain other proper classes). |
||
Revision as of 16:32, 30 August 2023
The Burali–Forti paradox refers to the theorem that there is no set containing all von Neumann ordinals. Essentially, if there were such a set, then it would itself be a von Neumann ordinal, contradicting the axiom of foundation, which implies no set can be an element of itself. In second-order theories such as Morse-Kelley set theory, this issue is circumvented by making the collection of ordinals a proper class, while all ordinals are sets (and proper classes can not contain other proper classes).