🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <11040@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> brendan@cs.uq.oz.au writes:
>In <1992Nov10.001234.18488@guinness.idbsu.edu> holmes@garnet.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes) writes:
>
>>i.  Russell's paradox does have _semantic_ consequences.  Whatever
>>membership is, there is no set of all sets that are not members of
>>themselves.  Certainly the mechanics of applying the paradox are
>>syntactical -- so what?
>
>I don't see that the Russell paradox of itself requires the
>non-existence of this object (RP).
>The most I could deduce from it is that the predicate
>
>	RP is a member of RP
>
>has no truth value. I.e. the function 'is a member of' is not total.

Naive set theory uses first order logic, which precludes this.  This
is a way of trying to avoid the paradoxes; it is not particularly
satisfactory.  Saving logic is more important that saving the Russell
class.


>
>--
>When soldiers form lines or hollow squares, you call it reason.
>When wild geese in flight take the form of a letter V, you say instinct.
>When the homogeneous atoms of a mineral arrange themselves into shapes
>mathematically perfect you have nothing to say. You have not even invented a name to conceal your heroic unreason."


-- 
The opinions expressed		|     --Sincerely,
above are not the "official"	|     M. Randall Holmes
opinions of any person		|     Math. Dept., Boise State Univ.
or institution.			|     holmes@opal.idbsu.edu