Axiomatic set theory ZFC is inconsistent, thus mathematics ends in contradiction:

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp-content/uploads/MATHEMATICS.pdf

Axiomatic set theory ZFC was in part developed to rid mathematics of its paradoxes, such as Russell's paradox.

The axiom in ZFC developed to do that, ad hoc, is the axiom of separation.

The axiom of separation is used to outlaw/block/ban impredicative statements like Russell's paradox,

but this axiom of separation is itself impredicative:

[axiom of separation] thus it outlaws/blocks/bans itself

thus ZFC contradicts itself and 1) ZFC is inconsistent 2) that the paradoxes it was meant to avoid are now still valid and thus mathematics is inconsistent.

Now we have paradoxes like

Russell's paradox

Banach-Tarski paradox

Burali-Forti paradox

Which are now still valid.

With all the paradoxes in maths returning, mathematics now again ends in contradiction.

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp-content/uploads/MATHEMATICS.pdf

Axiomatic set theory ZFC was in part developed to rid mathematics of its paradoxes, such as Russell's paradox.

The axiom in ZFC developed to do that, ad hoc, is the axiom of separation.

Now Russell's paradox is a famous example of an impredicative construction, namely the set of all sets which do not contain themselves.. Axiom schema of specification (also called the axiom schema of separation or of restricted comprehension): If z is a set, and $\phi\!$ is any property which may characterize the elements x of z, then there is a

subset y of z containing those x in z which satisfy the property. The "restriction" to z is necessary to avoid Russell's paradox and its variant

The axiom of separation is used to outlaw/block/ban impredicative statements like Russell's paradox,

but this axiom of separation is itself impredicative:

but the axiom thus bans itself - thus ZFC is inconsistent:"in ZF the fundamental source of impredicativity is the separation axiom which asserts that for each well formed function p(x)of the language ZF the existence of the set x : x } a ^ p(x) for any set a Since the formula

p may contain quantifiers ranging over the supposed "totality" of all the sets, this is impredicativity according to the VCP this impredicativity is given teeth by the axiom of infinity

[axiom of separation] thus it outlaws/blocks/bans itself

thus ZFC contradicts itself and 1) ZFC is inconsistent 2) that the paradoxes it was meant to avoid are now still valid and thus mathematics is inconsistent.

Now we have paradoxes like

Russell's paradox

Banach-Tarski paradox

Burali-Forti paradox

Which are now still valid.

With all the paradoxes in maths returning, mathematics now again ends in contradiction.

Last edited by a moderator: