Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Let R be the set of all sets that are not members of themselves. (This set is sometimes called "the Russell set".) If R is not a member of itself, then its definition entails that it is a member of itself; yet, if it is a member of itself, then it is not a member of itself, since it is the set of all sets that are not members of themselves. The ...
To investigate the left distributivity of set subtraction over unions or intersections, consider how the sets involved in (both of) De Morgan's laws are all related: () = = () always holds (the equalities on the left and right are De Morgan's laws) but equality is not guaranteed in general (that is, the containment might be strict).
A set of polygons in an Euler diagram This set equals the one depicted above since both have the very same elements.. In mathematics, a set is a collection of different [1] things; [2] [3] [4] these things are called elements or members of the set and are typically mathematical objects of any kind: numbers, symbols, points in space, lines, other geometrical shapes, variables, or even other ...
Russell recognized that the statement x = x is true for every set, and thus the set of all sets is defined by {x | x = x}. In 1906 he constructed several paradox sets, the most famous of which is the set of all sets which do not contain themselves. Russell himself explained this abstract idea by means of some very concrete pictures.
Russell's paradox concerns the impossibility of a set of sets, whose members are all sets that do not contain themselves. If such a set could exist, it could neither contain itself (because its members all do not contain themselves) nor avoid containing itself (because if it did, it should be included as one of its members). [2]
Cantor's theorem and its proof are closely related to two paradoxes of set theory. Cantor's paradox is the name given to a contradiction following from Cantor's theorem together with the assumption that there is a set containing all sets, the universal set. In order to distinguish this paradox from the next one discussed below, it is important ...
For example, the union of three sets A, B, and C contains all elements of A, all elements of B, and all elements of C, and nothing else. Thus, x is an element of A ∪ B ∪ C if and only if x is in at least one of A, B, and C. A finite union is the union of a finite number of sets; the phrase does not imply that the union set is a finite set ...
Set is the prototype of a concrete category; other categories are concrete if they are "built on" Set in some well-defined way. Every two-element set serves as a subobject classifier in Set. The power object of a set A is given by its power set, and the exponential object of the sets A and B is given by the set of all functions from A to B.