ϕ Equivalence between set theory and logic — and Russell’s paradox

When you formulate any logic predicate you automatically implicitly define a set of entities constrained by that predicate — i.e. a set of items for which the predicate is true. The set appears because predicate ‘works’ on a variable of variables, and variable is something that by definition can have multiple values, thus belongs to some set.

So, when you define a predicate P(x) it is the same as to define a set {x| P(x)} and vice versa, union of set is disjunction of correspondent predicates and so on — equivalence between sets and predicates.

Russell’s paradox

Its original formulation is that a set of sets that don’t contain themselves is contradictory (indeed it can’t neither contain itself nor not contain).
But that can be translated into a paradox of logic:
Set of sets that don’t contain themselves is a predicate
P(Q) = ¬Q(Q)
— then
P(P) = ¬P(P)
— contradiction.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

💻 Programming: recipe: response validation against OpenAPI schema in Python

Image
Summary: code snippets and explanation of how to validate HTTP-response using  openapi-core package If you deal with some service based on OpenAPI Specification you might want to perform validation of HTTP responses returned by it. One of the ways to do this an internet search provides for Python is to use openapi-core package. If you look at their documentation ( here or here ) you will find it very stingy: couple of short code snippets and couple of sentences just stating what is done. In particular for response validation we have exactly the following:   You can also validate against responses   from openapi_core . validation . response . validators import ResponseValidator   validator = ResponseValidator (spec) result = validator . validate (request, response)   # raise errors if response invalid result .raise_for_errors()   # get list of errors errors = result .errors ...   Here we see some confusing things: why do we need a request object to be able to validate the respo
Read more

ϕ Logic vs. ‘common sense’

Logic is a doctrine of correct judgment and it’s “our everything” (in the sense that it is necessary for any theory and learning). But to discover or ‘invent’ (formulate for the very first time) the laws of logic it is already necessary to think (judge) correctly — so there is a question: Isn’t there a kind of paradox? Or at least a vicious circle? Indeed, if you think correctly you can formulate correct logic laws and using them prove something (and maybe the way of how you judged about correctness of the laws formulated) — but if you don’t then the laws are invalid and you are unable even to find that. Seems the ability of reasoning is intrinsic for people (at least for those who is educated enough) and the ‘discovery’ of the ‘laws’ is just a result of observations (of own and other people thinking and judgments and their correspondence to a real state) and further refinements of them. But usually that ability is unconscious (intuitive) and informal (nobody judges like “A is true bec
Read more

💻 Programming: recipe: pytest: assertion after all tests run

Example of how to check some conditions when ALL test suites finished (or enforce some test running at the end of session). This may be useful to ensure that you have tested all functions of some module whose interface can change in future. The code: from   pytest   import   fixture     Data  =  dict ( cnt  =  0 )   @fixture ( scope = 'session' ) def   data_0 ():        yield   Data        # (this will be done AFTER all tests below)      assert   Data [ 'cnt' ] ==  3 ,  f 'data-cnt:  { Data [ "cnt" ] } '   @fixture def   data ( data_0 ):        Data [ 'cnt' ] +=  1        return   Data [ 'cnt' ]   def   test_11 ( data ):        print ()      print ( 'test-11:' ,  data )   def   test_12 ( data ):        print ()      print ( 'test-12:' ,  data ) Output: ERROR test_1.py::test_12 - AssertionError: data-cnt: 2 _________ Other articles ~ programming
Read more