FOM: Cantor's Theorem & Paradoxes & Continuum Hypothesis
Neil Tennant
neilt at mercutio.cohums.ohio-state.edu
Tue Feb 13 11:59:28 EST 2001
On Tue, 13 Feb 2001, Joseph Vidal-Rosset wrote:
> The point is that invoking Separation in the proof there is an
> implicit mention of the Power Set: "a particular subset of A is
> determined by the totality of all subsets of A, or even by the
> totality of all sets - which is just the procedure against which
> Russell's vicious circle principle was directed." (Fraenkel et alia,
> Foundations of Set Theory, p. 38).
I don't see any threat of impredicativity in the use made of Separation in
the proof of Cantor's theorem. The "diagonal" subset D of X that is
obtained by Separation is defined as
{x in X | x not in f(x) }
where f is assumed to be defined on X, 1-1, and taking subsets of X as
values. But in the condition "x not in f(x)" there is no *quantification
over* any totality of which D is a member.
The general misgiving about impredicativity and Separation is surely to do
with the fact that in certain instances of the Separation axiom scheme
if the set X exists then so does the set {x in X | F(x)}
there will be instances phi (substituends) of the schematic letter F that
contain quantifications that *do* range over totalities to which the set
{x in X | phi(x)} belongs.
But, for the particular formula "x not in f(x)" used for the application
of Separation in the proof of Cantor's theorem, this is not the case.
Neil Tennant
More information about the FOM
mailing list