On Jun 4, 2009, at 8:27 AM, Torgny Tholerus wrote:
> How do you handle the Russell paradox with the set of all sets that
> does
> not contain itself? Does that set contain itself or not?
>
> My answer is that that set does not contain itself, because no set can
> contain itself. So the set of all sets that does not contain
> itself, is
> the same as the set of all sets. And that set does not contain
> itself.
> This set is a set, but it does not contain itself. It is exactly the
> same with the natural numbers, BIGGEST+1 is a natural number, but it
> does not belong to the set of all natural numbers. The set of all
> sets
> is a set, but it does not belong to the set of all sets.
So you're saying that the set of all sets doesn't contain all sets.
How is that any less paradoxical than the Russell paradox you're
trying to avoid?
-- Kory
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Thu Jun 04 2009 - 14:50:09 PDT