🚀 go-pugleaf

In <1992Nov20.155725.11719@guinness.idbsu.edu> holmes@garnet.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes) writes:

>This is inaccurate.  Russell's paradox proves nothing except that
>there is no set which has exactly the sets which are not elements of
>themselves as members.

Come on Russel's `paradox' tells us that if we assume
 
	(RS \in RS) or \lnot (RS \in RS)
 
we are in lots of trouble.
   
--
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."