Set-Theoretic Hypodoxes and co-Russell's Paradox

Timotej Šujan

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2411.11432

Set-Theoretic Hypodoxes and co-Russell's Paradox

Timotej Šujan

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

In this paper, we argue that while the concept of a set-theoretic paradox (or paradoxical set) can be relatively well-defined within a formal setting, the concept of a set-theoretic hypodox (or hypodoxical set) remains significantly less clear--especially if the self-membership assertion of the co-Russell set, $\{x:x\in x\}$, is classified as hypodoxical, whereas other set-theoretic sentences with no apparent connection to paradoxes are not. Furthermore, we demonstrate in detail how a contradiction can be derived in Na\"{\i}ve Set Theory by exploiting the unique properties of the co-Russell set, relying on the Fixed Point Theorem of Na\"{\i}ve Set Theory. This result suggests that the boundary between paradoxes and hypodoxes may not be as clear-cut as one might assume.

Explore related subjects

math.LO

Keep this discovery

BibTeX RIS

Timotej Šujan. 2024-11-18. Set-Theoretic Hypodoxes and co-Russell's Paradox. https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.11432

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

There is no maximal $K$-degree

The Kolmogorov complexity of a string characterize how complex it is to describe the string. If every prefix of a real $x$ is more complex to describe than every prefix (of the same length) of real $y$, then it is seen as $x$ is more complex to describe than $y$. It is wondered if there is a real $x$ so that no other reals are strictly more complex (to describe) than $x$. The behavior of Kolmogorov complexity functions generated by reals (namely $n\mapsto$ the minimal description length of the real) is quite chaos. Therefore, it is widely believed that there are many reals that are maximally complex to describe. For instance, it is conjectured that all random enough reals have maximal $K$-degree. In this paper, it is shown that there is no real with maximal $K$-degree. Actually, for almost all real $x$, we can uniformly computably find another real whose $K$-degree is strictly above $x$.

math.LO↗

arXiv2026

Quadruples and cubes

We prove, in $\mathsf{ZFC}$, that the $\lambda$-terraced cube relation fails whenever $\lambda$ is an uncountable cardinal. The corresponding terraced relation for quadruples fails for every $\lambda$. If $\lambda$ is $\aleph_0$ then the pretinent terraced relation has consistency strength of at least one Woodin cardinal. We prove positive polarized relations at a successor and a double successor from wondrous ideals. We show, however, that there are no such ideals over two consecutive cardinals simultaneously.

math.LO↗

arXiv2026

Possibilistic Logic over a Logic of Formal Inconsistency

In this article, we have introduced a new possibilistic logic on a logic of formal inconsistency with the aim of developing a possibility theoretic framework to deal with uncertainty and inconsistency meaningfully without leading to a system collapse. We have discussed the syntax and semantics for this logic and have proved the soundness and completeness theorems. A set of new measures of consistency, contradictoriness, and triviality of a set of formulas have been defined. These have then been put to use in an example to show that this framework can provide better means of machine reasoning.

math.LO↗