🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <25916@optima.cs.arizona.edu> gudeman@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes:
>No, I am not complaining about elementhood being a proposition, I am
>complaining about a syntactic circularity begin treated as though it
>had semantic significance.  Neither am I concerned about the
>unrestricted range of the quantification.  As the set {x : x = x}
>clearly shows, there is no inconsistency inherent in either
>self-membership or impredicativity.  I claim that {x : x = x} is a
>perfectly reasonable set and that the mere fact that ZF proves the
>opposite is enough to show that ZF is not an adequate axiomatization
>of set theory.

All right; but what would you put in it's place?  I'm not willing to call
something "set theory" unless it has *some* recognizable form of the axiom
of comprehension.  Can you formalize your ideas?