- Cantor's paradox
In
set theory , Cantor's paradox is thetheorem that there is no greatestcardinal number , so that the collection of "infinite sizes" is itself infinite. Furthermore, it follows from this fact that this collection is not a set but aproper class ; invon Neumann–Bernays–Gödel set theory it follows from this and theaxiom of limitation of size that this proper class must be in bijection with the class of all sets. Thus, not only are there infinitely many infinities, but this infinity is larger than any of the infinities it enumerates!This paradox is named for
Georg Cantor , who is often credited with first identifying it in 1899 (or between 1895 and 1897). Like many mathematical "paradoxes" it is not actually contradictory but merely indicative of a mistaken intuition, in this case about the nature of infinity and the notion of a set. Put another way, it is paradoxical within the confines ofnaïve set theory and therefore demonstrates that a careless axiomatization of this theory is inconsistent.Statement and proof
In order to state the paradox it is necessary to understand that the cardinal numbers admit an ordering, so that one can speak about one being greater or less than another. Then Cantor's paradox is:
:Theorem: There is no greatest cardinal number.
This fact is a direct consequence of
Cantor's theorem on the cardinality of thepower set of a set.:Proof: Assume the contrary, and let "C" be the largest cardinal number. Then (in the von Neumann formulation of cardinality) "C" is a set and therefore has a power set "2C" which, by Cantor's theorem, has cardinality strictly larger than that of "C". But the cardinality of "C" is "C" itself, by definition, and therefore we have exhibited a cardinality (namely that of "2C") larger than "C", which was assumed to be the greatest cardinal number. This contradiction establishes that such a cardinal cannot exist.
However, see A. Garciadiego, Bertrand Russell and the Origins of The Set-Theoretic 'Paradoxes,' for a discussion of the idea that this is not a paradox, and that Cantor did not consider it a paradox.
Discussion and consequences
Since the cardinal numbers are well-ordered by indexing with the
ordinal numbers (see Cardinal number, formal definition), this also establishes that there is no greatest ordinal number; conversely, the latter statement implies Cantor's paradox. By applying this indexing to theBurali-Forti paradox we also conclude that the cardinal numbers are aproper class rather than a set, and (at least inZFC or invon Neumann–Bernays–Gödel set theory ) it follows from this that there is a bijection between the class of cardinals and the class of all sets. Since every set is a subset of this latter class, and every cardinality is the cardinality of a set (by definition!) this intuitively means that the "cardinality" of the collection of cardinals is greater than the cardinality of any set: it is more infinite than any true infinity. This is the paradoxical nature of Cantor's "paradox".Historical note
While Cantor is usually credited with first identifying this property of cardinal sets, some mathematicians award this distinction to
Bertrand Russell , who defined a similar theorem in 1899 or 1901.Sources
* cite book
author=Anellis, I.H.
title="The first Russell paradox," Perspectives on the History of Mathematical Logic
editor=Drucker, Thomas
publisher=Birkäuser Boston
location=Cambridge, Mass.
year=1991
pages=33-46
* cite journal
author=Moore, G.H. and Garciadiego, A.
title=Burali-Forti's paradox: a reappraisal of its origins
journal=Historia Math
volume=8
pages=319–350
doi=10.1016/0315-0860(81)90070-7
year=1981External links
* [http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/496807.html An Historical Account of Set-Theoretic Antinomies Caused by the Axiom of Abstraction] : report by Justin T. Miller, Department of Mathematics, University of Arizona.
* [http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/CantorsParadox.html PlanetMath.org] : article.
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.