this post was submitted on 03 Feb 2026
10 points (91.7% liked)
Asklemmy
52649 readers
316 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There is an MO thread about this:
https://mathoverflow.net/questions/90876/what-would-be-some-major-consequences-of-the-inconsistency-of-zfc
Basically "our mathematical system" for mathematicians usually (though not always) refers to so-called ZFC set theory. This is an extremely powerful theory that goes far beyond what is needed for everyday mathematics, but it straightforwardly encodes most ordinary mathematical theorems and proofs. Some people do have doubts about its consistency. Maybe some inconsistency in fact could turn up in the far-out technical fingres of the theory. If that invalidates some niche areas of set theory but doesn't affect the more conventional parts of math, then presumably the problem would get fixed up and things would keep going about like before. On the other hand, if the inconsistency went deeper and was harder to escape from, there would be considerable disruption in math.
See Henry Cohn's answer in the MO thread for the longer take that the above paragraph is cribbed from.
I'm not going to dive in there at the moment, correct me if I'm wrong (the 'the problem would get fixed up and things would keep going about like before' case I suppose).
To answer OP's question, basically the same thing that happened last time with Russel's paradox, which, to massively simplify, was add a new axiom that says you can't do that and carry on. (Which gave rise to the aforementioned ZFC set theory).
Yes, that's Frege's system mentioned in Henry Cohn's post. But that happened in a very naive time compared with today. So it would be more of a surprise if something like that happened again.