## Thursday, 24 March 2011

### I've been missing.

Ok so since my university work has ramped up - I've had little time for blogging/let alone myself; thus the absence of interesting updates.

Hopefully, when my assignments are done I shall devote my time to making some more thought provoking posts.

But for now I'll leave you to ponder Russel's Paradox

Pre-reading: The following assumes that you are all familiar with a set, if not then put simply;
A set is a collection of objects.
Generally there will be a rule discerning whether an object is included in a set or not. for example;
A set of all shoe brands does not have colgate as a member (since colgate is a toothpaste brand).

The members of a set can also be sets themselves, for example;
The set of all forks is a member of the set of all cutlery.

Now make a proposal;
Let F be the set of all forks, F itself is not a fork therefore F does not contain itself as a member.
We can call F as a normal set.

Now suppose we have a set NF - this is the set of all things that are not forks. NF itself is not a fork, therefore it contains itself as a member. We can call NF an abnormal set.

Suppose we have a new set G - with all of its elements normal sets. Now, if G is normal then it should contain itself as a member - but the instant it contains itself, G becomes abnormal.

This is known as Russel's Paradox.

1. I was getting worried you had vanished into the vast depths of the internet. Will you be posting mathematical related material again soon?

2. Thanks for the info!

3. great post. following you