STUFF!! and perhaps some meaningful stuff on set theory.

2009 June 5
by Srijan

There was a time when I considered someone’s starting a post by telling that “it has been a long time since i posted..” and explaining why they were forced into doing this henious crime as immature.  Today, I’ll indulge into it: It has been a long time since i posted and I am posting because i found something really interesting at -

http://prasantgopal.com/blog/?p=486

Please go through that and then come back.. doing that will possibly make the rest of the post ‘ some meaningful stuff on set theory and STUFF otherwise.

Talking about the paradox:

I think everything was dismissed too soon. We have got a paradox here. This implies something must have been wrong/inconsistent somewhere before . I am considereing the paradox as a contradiction. And the fact that abnormal set is a set at the first place as the hypothesis. An abnormal set has itself in it, how can we accept that to be a set so straightaway. Afterall, a set is a collection of well defined objects.

A question which should be asked is “If a set has itself in it, then is it a set?” or “Is the set as an element of itself a well defined object?”.

So, an abnormal set might not be a set! Now, consider the paradox to be contradiction. Then, the hypothesis that Abnormal set is a set,  becomes wrong. That is to say abnormal set is not a set! So, this paradax was actually the proof of “Abnormal set not being a set”.

A Corollary would be, for a set to be a set it must not contain itself.

Maybe such kind of “not set” sets could be called pseudo-sets in future.

Btw, i can give a formal proof for the theorem, “A set cannot contain itself.” would be.

Hypothesis: let a set contain itself and still be called a set. (i.e. Abnormal sets are sets)

Then…..

All the paradox matererial comes here.

Since we get a contradiction (the paradox), the hypothesis is false.

Therefore, a set can’t contain itself.

Ps1: I have a gut feeling that this will create history…. :P :D

Ps2: I know the same thoughts have been harped again and again……. and again.. :P

Ps3: OBH calling… :D

2 Responses leave one →
  1. 2009 June 6
    Prakhar permalink

    1. The definition of set you gave was an earlier definition and has been discarded.
    The new definition has no notion of “well defined”.
    The definition of a set is “A set is a finite or infinite collection of objects in which order has no significance, and multiplicity is generally also ignored (unlike a list or multiset)”

    Your basis of discarding the idea of abnormal set is hence of no significance and the paradox still remains … ;)

  2. 2009 July 1

    Hi! I was surfing and found your blog post… nice! I love your blog. :) Cheers! Sandra. R.

Leave a Reply

Note: You can use basic XHTML in your comments. Your email address will never be published.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS