Katana VentraIP

Paradoxes of set theory

This article contains a discussion of paradoxes of set theory. As with most mathematical paradoxes, they generally reveal surprising and counter-intuitive mathematical results, rather than actual logical contradictions within modern axiomatic set theory.

Basics[edit]

Cardinal numbers[edit]

Set theory as conceived by Georg Cantor assumes the existence of infinite sets. As this assumption cannot be proved from first principles it has been introduced into axiomatic set theory by the axiom of infinity, which asserts the existence of the set N of natural numbers. Every infinite set which can be enumerated by natural numbers is the same size (cardinality) as N, and is said to be countable. Examples of countably infinite sets are the natural numbers, the even numbers, the prime numbers, and also all the rational numbers, i.e., the fractions. These sets have in common the cardinal number |N| = (aleph-nought), a number greater than every natural number.


Cardinal numbers can be defined as follows. Define two sets to have the same size by: there exists a bijection between the two sets (a one-to-one correspondence between the elements). Then a cardinal number is, by definition, a class consisting of all sets of the same size. To have the same size is an equivalence relation, and the cardinal numbers are the equivalence classes.

Ordinal numbers[edit]

Besides the cardinality, which describes the size of a set, ordered sets also form a subject of set theory. The axiom of choice guarantees that every set can be well-ordered, which means that a total order can be imposed on its elements such that every nonempty subset has a first element with respect to that order. The order of a well-ordered set is described by an ordinal number. For instance, 3 is the ordinal number of the set {0, 1, 2} with the usual order 0 < 1 < 2; and ω is the ordinal number of the set of all natural numbers ordered the usual way. Neglecting the order, we are left with the cardinal number |N| = |ω| = .


Ordinal numbers can be defined with the same method used for cardinal numbers. Define two well-ordered sets to have the same order type by: there exists a bijection between the two sets respecting the order: smaller elements are mapped to smaller elements. Then an ordinal number is, by definition, a class consisting of all well-ordered sets of the same order type. To have the same order type is an equivalence relation on the class of well-ordered sets, and the ordinal numbers are the equivalence classes.


Two sets of the same order type have the same cardinality. The converse is not true in general for infinite sets: it is possible to impose different well-orderings on the set of natural numbers that give rise to different ordinal numbers.


There is a natural ordering on the ordinals, which is itself a well-ordering. Given any ordinal α, one can consider the set of all ordinals less than α. This set turns out to have ordinal number α. This observation is used for a different way of introducing the ordinals, in which an ordinal is equated with the set of all smaller ordinals. This form of ordinal number is thus a canonical representative of the earlier form of equivalence class.

Power sets[edit]

By forming all subsets of a set S (all possible choices of its elements), we obtain the power set P(S). Georg Cantor proved that the power set is always larger than the set, i.e., |P(S)| > |S|. A special case of Cantor's theorem proves that the set of all real numbers R cannot be enumerated by natural numbers. R is uncountable: |R| > |N|.

The answer is yes, because for every natural number n there is a square number n2, and likewise the other way around.

The answer is no, because the squares are a of the naturals: every square is a natural number but there are natural numbers, like 2, which are not squares of natural numbers.

proper subset

Proof of impossibility

Berry paradox

G. Cantor: Gesammelte Abhandlungen mathematischen und philosophischen Inhalts, E. Zermelo (Ed.), Olms, Hildesheim 1966.

H. Meschkowski, W. Nilson: Georg Cantor - Briefe, Springer, Berlin 1991.

A. Fraenkel: Einleitung in die Mengenlehre, Springer, Berlin 1923.

A. A. Fraenkel, A. Levy: Abstract Set Theory, North Holland, Amsterdam 1976.

F. Hausdorff: Grundzüge der Mengenlehre, Chelsea, New York 1965.

B. Russell: The principles of mathematics I, Cambridge 1903.

B. Russell: On some difficulties in the theory of transfinite numbers and order types, Proc. London Math. Soc. (2) 4 (1907) 29-53.

P. J. Cohen: Set Theory and the Continuum Hypothesis, Benjamin, New York 1966.

S. Wagon: , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1985.

The Banach–Tarski Paradox

B. Russell: Principia Mathematica I, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge 1910, p. 64.

A. N. Whitehead

E. Zermelo: Neuer Beweis für die Möglichkeit einer Wohlordnung, Math. Ann. 65 (1908) p. 107-128.

Principia Mathematica

by Timothy Gowers

Definability paradoxes

. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

"Russell's Paradox"

. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

"Russell-Myhill Paradox"