Re: on formally describable universes and measures

From: Russell Standish <>
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 09:26:38 +1100 (EST)

I'm not sure that it would actually. The plenitude would include all
sets that don't contain themselves, as well as sets that do. We know
the plenitude contains itself. However, since the set of all sets that
don't contain themselves is a logical contradiction, it is presumably
excluded from the plenitude in just the same way as square circles are.

So this still doesn't imply that the plenitude is not a set, only that
the set of all sets that don't contain themselves is not a subset of
the plenitude. (Perhaps this make it not a set ??)


Brent Meeker wrote:
> Hello Russell
> On 07-Mar-01, Russell Standish wrote:
> >> From the dim recesses of my memory, "the set of all sets" is a
> >> logical
> > contradiction, although I can't remember why. Is the plenitude like
> > the "set of all sets" in some way?
> It would include the set of all sets which are not members of themselves
> - but the existence of this set is self-contradictory.
> Brent Meeker

Dr. Russell Standish Director
High Performance Computing Support Unit, Phone 9385 6967
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 Fax 9385 6965
Room 2075, Red Centre
Received on Thu Mar 08 2001 - 15:12:43 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:07 PST