**Proof**: *(related to "There is no set of all sets")*

- We have seen in the above explanation how the axiom of separation avoids the Russel’s Paradox.
- In particular, we have seen that for every set $X$ the set $\{z\in X\mid z\not\in z\}$ is well-defined (exists).
- Therefore, if a “set of all sets” existed, it would have to contain $\{z\in X\mid z\not\in z\}$ as an element.
- But for all $X$ we have $\{z\in X\mid z\not\in z\}\not\in X.$
- Therefore, a “set of all sets” does not exist.

q.e.d

| | | | Contributors: *bookofproofs* | References: [656], [983]

(none)

[983] **Ebbinghaus, H.-D.**: “Einführung in die Mengenlehre”, BI Wisschenschaftsverlag, 1994, 3

[656] **Hoffmann, Dirk W.**: “Grenzen der Mathematik – Eine Reise durch die Kerngebiete der mathematischen Logik”, Spektrum Akademischer Verlag, 2011

FeedsAcknowledgmentsTerms of UsePrivacy PolicyImprint

© 2018 Powered by BooOfProofs, All rights reserved.

© 2018 Powered by BooOfProofs, All rights reserved.