Set Theory and Logic

   

Resolving Russell's Paradox Within Cantor's Intuitive Set Theory

Authors: Feng Xu

The set of all the subsets of a set is its power set, and the cardinality of the power set is always larger than the set and its subsets. Based on the definition and the inequality in cardinality, a set cannot include its power set as element, and a power set cannot include itself as element. "Russell's set" is a putative set of all the sets that don't include themselves as element. It can be shown, however, that "Russell's set" can never take in all such sets. This is because its own power set, which (like any power set) is a set that doesn't include itself (thus qualifies as an element for "Russell's set"), cannot (although should) be taken in due to the cardinality inequality. Thus "Russell's set" can never be formed. Without it, Russell's paradox, which forced the modification of Cantor's intuitive set theory into a more restricted axiomatic theory, can never be formulated. The reported approach to resolve Russell's paradox is fundamentally different from the conventional approaches. It may restore the self-consistency of Cantor's original set theory, make the Axiom of Regularity unnecessary, and expand the coverage of set to assemblies that include themselves as element.

Comments: 6 pages, first published in 2006 in Hadronic Journal, volume 29, page 227

Download: PDF

Submission history

[v1] 8 Dec 2009

Unique-IP document downloads: 1456 times

Articles available on viXra.org are pre-prints that may not yet have been verified by peer-review and should therefore be treated as preliminary and speculative. Nothing stated should be treated as sound unless confirmed and endorsed by a concensus of independent qualified experts. In particular anything that appears to include financial or legal information or proposed medical treatments should not be taken as such. Vixra.org will not be responsible for any consequences of actions that result from any form of use of any documents on this website.

Add your own feedback and questions here:
You are equally welcome to be positive or negative about any paper but please be polite. If you are being critical you must mention at least one specific error, otherwise your comment will be deleted as unhelpful.

comments powered by Disqus