Hi, everybody, Jade here.

Today's video is about one of the most famous paradoxesin mathematical

history.It's called Russell's paradox named after Bertrand Russell,super cool dude, very influential
philosopher/mathematician/ logistician/ social activist/Nobel prize winner, so yeah, we'll get to know
all about him but this is probably one of my favorite paradoxes and it's really one of those onesthat
just makes you really question everything, you know,question everything you know.So yeah, I'm
super excited for this video.Just before we get into it, I just wanna say thatthis is probably the most
genuinest video I've ever done.There's a lot of subtleties and there's a lot of philosophy.So if you find
that you're getting a bit lost or you need to like rewind or watch the video again, that's totally normal
and I'd actually be pretty surprised if you've got everything the first time.So yeah, let's get right into
it.So first, I'm going to introduce you to a somewhat simpler version of the paradox just to soften
some of the concepts that we're going to talk about later on. So, this one is called the Barber paradox
and it goes like this. There is a town with one barber and his task is to shave all and only those who
do not shave themselves.Now, the question is, does the barber shave himself?Think about it, if the
barber does not shave himself, then he should and if he does shave himself,then he shouldn't.So?So,
keep this little riddle at the back of your mind throughout the rest of the video but now, let's get
right into the math.So Russell's paradox is ultimately about the foundation of mathematics,but some
of you might be unfamiliar with that concept,what is a foundation of mathematics?Well, let's draw
an analogy with the other sciences.The sciences are kind of like a tree.Biology is the study of living
organisms, which are the result of millions and millions of chemical interactions. So, one could
conclude that all branches of biology stem from chemistry or that chemistry is in some way,
foundational to biology.Likewise, chemical reactions are ultimately physical interactions. So, one
could conclude that all branches of chemistry stem from physics. If we keep going down in this way,
we'll eventually come to the elementary particles that make up our universe, electrons and
quarks.The laws that govern these particles can be considered the foundations of science in that, the
rest of the sciences stem from them. If we were to discover something completely new about them,
it would somewhat affect our understanding of the other sciences, even if only at the theoretical
level.In the 19th century, each branch of math was pretty disconnected from the other branches and
there was no unifying trunk. Mathematicians at the time wanted to unify the branches of
mathematics and therefore, a foundational theory was needed. But what made it tricky is that, the
approach to figure out the foundations of math is very different to that of the other sciences. We
learn about the other sciences by observing the outside world, whether it be watching cells under a
microscope, measuring orbits through a telescope or smashing particles together at insanely high
speeds. But we can't really learn more about mathematics by observing the outside world. Math
seems to be something that just is. We can imagine a universe where the fundamental building
blocks are different or where time goes backwards, or where everything was made of anti-matter,
but we can't really imagine a universe where two plus two equals five. Math is different in that it
seems to be true by definition and even though it's very good at describing our universe, it doesn't
seem to be about our universe. Why? That is the question at the heart of this paradox. Now, it's here
that we steer away from the harder sciences and head more toward the study of what reality really
is, philosophy. We come to the first character in our story. The question, why is math the way it is,
captured one of the greatest philosophical minds of all time, Plato. Plato thought that mathematical
objects, numbers, shapes and the relationships between them were objective truths, that is, objects
that existed independently of us and our world.

He thought they existed in their own world,

which he called the World of Forms.

But one of Plato's pupils, Aristotle, had his own views.

Unlike Plato, he thought that numbers themselves

weren't objects but properties of objects.

For example, if there were four cows in a field,

it wasn't that cows were an object

and four was also an object,

but the number four was a property

of the collection of cows.

He also thought they didn't exist

in their own World of Forms, independent of our world

but they described features of our world

and so, belonged to our world.

Another colorful philosopher, Immanuel Kant, soon came along

and he didn't like the view

that mathematical objects were objective truths

and believed that to understand the basic principles

of math, you needed some kind of intuition.

That yes, math described our world,

but we also brought it to the world from our experience.

Now, this is where our quiet hero of the story comes along,

Gottlob Frege.

Yes, interestingly, Bertrand Russell is not the main player

in Russell's paradox but a German mathematician named Frege.

The story of Frege is somewhat tragic

as he was largely ignored during his life

and 20 years of his life's work was unjustly

washed down the drain.

But here, he will be remembered as a God among us.

Frege disagreed with Aristotle's view

that numbers were properties of objects

because of this argument.

If numbers are properties of object,

then one number should belong to any object

and it shouldn't be influenced by matter of opinion

but then, imagine a pair of shoes

is it one pair of shoes or is it two shoes?

Depending on how we conceptualize an object,

the number belonging to it changes.

Again, imagine a deck of cards,

depending on how we conceptualize it,

it could be one deck of cards or 52 cards.

So Frege concluded that numbers don't apply to objects,

but to concepts.

He also disagreed with Kant that to understand math,

you needed intuition and experience,

stating that the laws of arithmetic can be known

from the basis of reason alone.

"I sought to make it plausible that arithmetic is a branch

of logic and need not borrow any ground of proof

whatever, from either experience or intuition."

Frege's main goal was to reduce mathematics to logic

and show that logic is in fact, the foundation of math.

This idea is known as logicism.

Now, the notion of logic that Frege had in mind

is pretty similar to how we would use it

in everyday language, but just to make it super clear,

logic is a tool for reasoning

about how different statements affect each other

through nothing more than deduction and inference.

For example, if we take it as a fact

that old dogs have a good sense of smell

and Tifa is a dog, deductive reasoning will tell you

that Tifa has a good sense of smell.

I don't know if this is the best example though

because she's pretty old,

I don't know if she can smell much anymore

but you get the idea.

Frege started his quest of reducing math to logic

by coming up with a definition of what number was.

Now, this might seem like a somewhat trivial question

to some of you, what is a number,

but remember at the heart of Frege's paradox

was the idea that you don't need any kind of intuition

or experience to understand mathematics

and when you think about it, have you ever actually tried

to describe what a number is without using the word number

or words derived from the word number?

I've spent some time trying as I was writing this video

and I found that I always ended up using the word number

again, or a word that was directly related to number,

like amount or quantity.

Give it a go right now and let me know

what you come up with in the comments.

Frege defined numbers by using this idea

of concepts and extensions.

A concept is pretty much any idea you can think of,

the color red, shape, Bill and Bob, Shakespeare's plays,

hipsters, elephants with no ears, literally any idea

and an extension is the set of all things

that fall under that concept.

For the concept the color red,

its extension would be the set of all red things

past, present, and future.

The concept Bill and Bob would be made of the extension

of the Bill and Bob you were referring to.

If we have a concept like square circles,

which doesn't make sense,

their extension would simply be the empty set,

a set with nothing in it.

Numbers, Frege stated, are extensions of concepts.

For example, the number four is the extension of the concept

of all things made up of a collection of this many objects.

The number seven is the extension of the concept

of all things made up of a collection of this many objects.

Frefe built his foundation of mathematics

from the axiom that all concepts we can possibly think of

have a corresponding extension and therefore,

there are as many extensions as there are concepts.

He named this the General Comprehension Principle

and it sounds reasonable, right?

Can you think of a concept that doesn't have

a corresponding set to go with it?

I don't think I could, but Bertrand Russell did.

Frege was just about to have his work printed

when he received a letter from Bertrand Russell

in June, 1901 which read along the lines of,

"Dear colleague, I find myself in complete agreement

with you in all essentials.

In regard to many particular questions,

I find in your work discussion, distinctions

and definitions that one seeks in vain

in the works of other logisticians.

There's just one point

where I have encountered a difficulty.

Consider the set of all sets

that are not members of themselves.

Is that set a member of itself?"

This simple question shattered Frege's foundation

and caused him a mental breakdown so severe,

he ended up in hospital and later, caused him to write,

"My efforts to throw light on the question

surrounding the word number seems to have ended

in complete failure."

Let's break it down.

First, a word about sets.

Sets are a collection of things.

You can even have sets within sets.

Take, for example, the set of all sets of bird species.

There exists a set of all penguins, the set of all seagulls,

the set of all pigeons

and the set of all other bird species

and they themselves would make up the set

of all sets of bird species.

Most sets are not members of themselves,

that is, they don't fall under themselves.

For example, the set of all teapots is not a teapot,

the set of all turtles is not a turtle

but what about the set of all things that are not turtles?

Because it's a set and not a turtle,

it is a member of the sea

of all things that are not turtles.

Therefore, the set of all things that are not turtles

is a member of itself.

A lot of sets are members of themselves

and there's nothing too extraordinary about that.

But the question that Russell asked was,

is the set of all sets that are not members of themselves

a member of itself?

Think about it, if it is a member of itself, then it is not

and if it's not a member of itself, it is.

Sound familiar?
I'll say it again, if it is a member of itself,

then it's not and if it's not a member of itself, it is.

Now the reason that this was so catastrophic

is because the last thing you want

in a neat systematized axiomatized description

of anything is a contradiction.

Imagine if one of the foundational laws of physics

predicted that gravity both always pulls and always pushes.

It would be a pretty useless law.

When your system is able to derive two opposite theorems,

this puts into question the entire theory.

Numerous attempts were made to correct this hiccup,

like Russell's Theory of Types,

which tried to put sets into some kind of hierarchy

but many thought that this fix

was too artificial and ad hoc.

Frege eventually felt forced to abandon

many of his views about logic and math.

Even so, as Russell points out,

Frege met the news of the paradox with remarkable fortitude.

"As I think about acts of integrity and grace,

I realize that there is nothing in my knowledge

to compare with Frege's dedication to truth.

His entire life's work was on the verge of completion.

Much of his work had been ignored

to the benefit of men infinitely less capable.

His second volume was about to be published

and upon finding that his fundamental assumption

was an error, he responded with intellectual pleasure,

clearly submerging any feelings of personal disappointment.

It was almost superhuman and a telling indication

of that of which men are capable if their dedication

is to creative work and knowledge

instead of cruder efforts to dominate and be known."

Apparently, he didn't know about the breakdown.

Anyway, after a series of fortunate events,

the foundations of mathematics is now known

to be a system called Zermelo-Fraenkel Set Theory,

which has a lot of Frege's original ideas

incorporated into it.

But although this is currently the most widely

accepted theory, the search still isn't over

with candidates like category theory

and homotopy type theory becoming serious contenders

for that much desired position

at the bottom of the math tree.

But that is for another video.