### Paradoxe de Russell bis (après avoir enregistré le fichier en local ça marche mieux).

parent 8dfd89e6
 ... ... @@ -11,21 +11,50 @@ Local Open Scope eqb_scope. (** On the necessity of a non trivial set theory : Russell's paradox. *) (* The naive set theory consists of the non restricted comprehension axiom schema : ∀ x1, ..., ∀ xn, ∃ E, ∀ y (y ∈ E <-> A), forall formula A whose free variable are x1, ..., xn. *) ∀ x1, ..., ∀ xn, ∃ a, ∀ y (y ∈ a <-> A), forall formula A whose free variable are amongst x1, ..., xn, y. *) Definition naive_sign := (* So as to make the proof easier, we assume there is a constant E in the signature of the theory. This could be avoided by transforming the statement of the paradox into "∃∀ (#0 ∈ #1 <-> ~(#0 ∈ #0))". *) {| Finite.funsymbs := [("E",0)]; Finite.predsymbs := [("∈",2)] |}. Notation "x ∈ y" := (Pred "∈" [x;y]) (at level 70) : formula_scope. Open Scope formula_scope. (* It is easy to notice that ∀ (#0 ∈ A <-> ~(#0 ∈ #0)) is (almost) an instance of the comprehension axiom schema : it suffices to let A = . *) Lemma Russell : Pr Intuiti ([ ∀ (#0 ∈ E <-> ~(#0 ∈ #0)) ] ⊢ False). (* So as to make the proof easier we Skolemise the instance of the comprehension axiom schema into ∀ y, (y ∈ a <-> A). It is easy to notice that ∀ (#0 ∈ A <-> ~(#0 ∈ #0)) is (almost) an instance of the comprehension axiom schema : it suffices to let A = ~ (a ∈ a). *) Lemma Russell a : Pr Intuiti ([ ∀ (#0 ∈ (FVar a) <-> ~(#0 ∈ #0)) ] ⊢ False). Proof. set (comp := ∀ _ <-> _). set (Γ := [comp]). set (A := FVar a). apply R_Not_e with (A := A ∈ A). + apply R_Imp_e with (A := ~ A ∈ A). - apply R_And_e2 with (A := (A ∈ A -> ~ A ∈ A)). assert (Pr Intuiti (Γ ⊢ comp)). { apply R_Ax. compute; intuition. } apply R_All_e with (t := FVar a) in H; auto. - apply R_Not_i. set (Γ' := (_ :: Γ)). apply R_Not_e with (A := A ∈ A). * apply R_Ax. compute; intuition. * apply R_Imp_e with (A := A ∈ A). ++ apply R_And_e1 with (B := (~ A ∈ A -> A ∈ A)). assert (Pr Intuiti (Γ' ⊢ comp)). { apply R_Ax. compute; intuition. } apply R_All_e with (t := FVar a) in H; auto. ++ apply R_Ax. compute; intuition. + apply R_Not_i. set (Γ' := (_ :: Γ)). apply R_Not_e with (A := A ∈ A). * apply R_Ax. compute; intuition. * apply R_Imp_e with (A := A ∈ A). ++ apply R_And_e1 with (B := (~ A ∈ A -> A ∈ A)). assert (Pr Intuiti (Γ' ⊢ comp)). { apply R_Ax. compute; intuition. } apply R_All_e with (t := FVar a) in H; auto. ++ apply R_Ax. compute; intuition. Qed. (* Russell's paradox therefore shows that the naive set theory is inconsistant. We are to try to fix it, using ZF(C) theory, which has not been proved inconstitant so far (neither has it been proved consistant though...). *) (** The ZF axioms *) ... ... @@ -56,7 +85,7 @@ Definition axioms_list := only since it contains now a [lift] of substituted terms inside quantifiers. *) Definition comprehension_schema A := Definition separation_schema A := nForall (Nat.pred (level A)-2) (∀∃∀ (#0 ∈ #1 <-> #0 ∈ #2 /\ A)). ... ... @@ -70,7 +99,7 @@ Local Close Scope formula_scope. Definition IsAx A := List.In A axioms_list \/ (exists B, A = comprehension_schema B /\ (exists B, A = separation_schema B /\ check ZFSign B = true /\ FClosed B). \/ ... ... @@ -84,7 +113,7 @@ Proof. - apply Wf_iff. unfold axioms_list in IN. simpl in IN. intuition; subst; reflexivity. - repeat split; unfold comprehension_schema; cbn. - repeat split; unfold separation_schema; cbn. + rewrite nForall_check. cbn. rewrite !check_bsubst, HB; auto. + red. rewrite nForall_level. cbn. ... ... @@ -124,15 +153,15 @@ Proof. unfold FClosed in *. intuition. Qed. End PeanoAx. End ZFAx. Local Open Scope string. Local Open Scope formula_scope. Definition PeanoTheory := Definition ZFTheory := {| sign := PeanoSign; IsAxiom := PeanoAx.IsAx; WfAxiom := PeanoAx.WfAx |}. Import PeanoAx. Import ZFAx.
Markdown is supported
0% or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!