The article is devoted to proving the inconsistency of set theory arising from the existence of strange trees. All steps of the proof rely on common informal set-theoretic reasoning, but they take into account the pro...The article is devoted to proving the inconsistency of set theory arising from the existence of strange trees. All steps of the proof rely on common informal set-theoretic reasoning, but they take into account the prohibitions that were introduced into axiomatic set theories in order to overcome the difficulties encountered by the naive Cantor set theory. Therefore, in fact, the article is about proving the inconsistency of existing axiomatic set theories, in particular, the ZFC theory.展开更多
The article is devoted to completing the proof of the inconsistency of set theory. In this article and in the two preceding ones, all steps of the proof are based on generally accepted informal set-theoretic reasoning...The article is devoted to completing the proof of the inconsistency of set theory. In this article and in the two preceding ones, all steps of the proof are based on generally accepted informal set-theoretic reasoning, but consider the prohibitions that were included in axiomatic set theories in order to overcome the difficulties encountered by the naive Cantor set theory. Therefore, in fact, the articles are about proving the inconsistency of existing axiomatic set theories, in particular, the ZFC theory.展开更多
The existence of “strange trees” is proven and their paradoxical nature is discussed, due to which set theory is suspected of being contradictory. All proofs rely on informal set-theoretic reasoning, but without usi...The existence of “strange trees” is proven and their paradoxical nature is discussed, due to which set theory is suspected of being contradictory. All proofs rely on informal set-theoretic reasoning, but without using elements that were prohibited in axiomatic set theories in order to overcome the difficulties encountered by Cantor’s naive set theory. Therefore, in fact, the article deals with the possible inconsistency of existing axiomatic set theories, in particular, the ZFC theory. Strange trees appear when uncountable cardinals appear.展开更多
文摘The article is devoted to proving the inconsistency of set theory arising from the existence of strange trees. All steps of the proof rely on common informal set-theoretic reasoning, but they take into account the prohibitions that were introduced into axiomatic set theories in order to overcome the difficulties encountered by the naive Cantor set theory. Therefore, in fact, the article is about proving the inconsistency of existing axiomatic set theories, in particular, the ZFC theory.
文摘The article is devoted to completing the proof of the inconsistency of set theory. In this article and in the two preceding ones, all steps of the proof are based on generally accepted informal set-theoretic reasoning, but consider the prohibitions that were included in axiomatic set theories in order to overcome the difficulties encountered by the naive Cantor set theory. Therefore, in fact, the articles are about proving the inconsistency of existing axiomatic set theories, in particular, the ZFC theory.
文摘The existence of “strange trees” is proven and their paradoxical nature is discussed, due to which set theory is suspected of being contradictory. All proofs rely on informal set-theoretic reasoning, but without using elements that were prohibited in axiomatic set theories in order to overcome the difficulties encountered by Cantor’s naive set theory. Therefore, in fact, the article deals with the possible inconsistency of existing axiomatic set theories, in particular, the ZFC theory. Strange trees appear when uncountable cardinals appear.
