Are you an EPFL student looking for a semester project?
Work with us on data science and visualisation projects, and deploy your project as an app on top of Graph Search.
Concept
Burali-Forti paradox
Summary
In set theory, a field of mathematics, the Burali-Forti paradox demonstrates that constructing "the set of all ordinal numbers" leads to a contradiction and therefore shows an antinomy in a system that allows its construction. It is named after Cesare Burali-Forti, who, in 1897, published a paper proving a theorem which, unknown to him, contradicted a previously proved result by Cantor. Bertrand Russell subsequently noticed the contradiction, and when he published it in his 1903 book Principles of Mathematics, he stated that it had been suggested to him by Burali-Forti's paper, with the result that it came to be known by Burali-Forti's name.
We will prove this by reductio ad absurdum.
Let Ω be a set consisting of all ordinal numbers.
Ω is transitive because for every element x of Ω (which is an ordinal number and can be any ordinal number) and every element y of x (i.e. under the definition of Von Neumann ordinals, for every ordinal number < ), we have that y is an element of Ω because any ordinal number contains only ordinal numbers, by the definition of this ordinal construction.
Ω is well ordered by the membership relation because all its elements are also well ordered by this relation.
So, by steps 2 and 3, we have that Ω is an ordinal class and also, by step 1, an ordinal number, because all ordinal classes that are sets are also ordinal numbers.
This implies that Ω is an element of Ω.
Under the definition of Von Neumann ordinals, < is the same as Ω being an element of Ω. This latter statement is proven by step 5.
But no ordinal class is less than itself, including Ω because of step 4 (Ω is an ordinal class), i.e. ≮.
We have deduced two contradictory propositions ( < and ≮ ) from the sethood of Ω and, therefore, disproved that Ω is a set.
The version of the paradox above is anachronistic, because it presupposes the definition of the ordinals due to John von Neumann, under which each ordinal is the set of all preceding ordinals, which was not known at the time the paradox was framed by Burali-Forti.
Official source
About this result
This page is automatically generated and may contain information that is not correct, complete, up-to-date, or relevant to your search query. The same applies to every other page on this website. Please make sure to verify the information with EPFL's official sources.