News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Category Theory Illustrated – Sets. Parent comment

Re:Category Theory Illustrated – Sets by axblount on Wednesday September 13, 2023 @02:06PM (#37499699)
This gives rise to Russell's Paradox:

Does the set of "all sets that do not contain themselves" contain itself?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Category Theory Illustrated – Sets by tikhonj on Wednesday September 13, 2023 @02:17PM (#37499811)
You can have set theories that allows sets to contain themselves without allowing Russell's Paradox. You can read about non-well-founded set theory[1] if you're curious.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-well-founded_set_theory

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Category Theory Illustrated – Sets by hackandthink on Wednesday September 13, 2023 @03:27PM (#37500633)
I like the diagram of "the set containing itself". It illustrates non-well-foundedness niceley.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Category Theory Illustrated – Sets by l33t7332273 on Wednesday September 13, 2023 @10:06PM (#37504086)
Which diagram are you referring to?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Category Theory Illustrated – Sets by hackandthink on Thursday September 14, 2023 @04:43AM (#37506438)
This one:

https://abuseofnotation.github.io/category-theory-illustrate...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Category Theory Illustrated – Sets by seanhunter on Wednesday September 13, 2023 @02:22PM (#37499847)
Resolving this paradox is discussed in TFA as being the founding rationale for the Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory in fact.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Category Theory Illustrated – Sets by righttoolforjob on Wednesday September 13, 2023 @02:31PM (#37499944)
simple: there is no such set.
[ Parent | on HN ]