Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!yetti!geac!sigrid
From: sigrid@geac.UUCP (Sigrid Grimm)
Newsgroups: sci.math,sci.math.symbolic,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Russell's set of sets which... paradox
Message-ID: <973@geac.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 27-Jul-87 14:06:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: geac.973
Posted: Mon Jul 27 14:06:00 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 28-Jul-87 01:35:51 EDT
References: <1214@utx1.UUCP> <6160@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Reply-To: sigrid@geac.UUCP (Sigrid Grimm)
Organization: The little blue rock next to that twinkly star
Lines: 10
Xref: mnetor sci.math:1661 sci.math.symbolic:106 sci.philosophy.tech:306

In article <6160@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) ) writes:
>In article <1214@utx1.UUCP> campbell@utx1.UUCP (Tom Campbell) writes:
>>QUESTION: Is S' a set which does not have itself as a member?
>
>Dunno; what's a "set"?  Is it definable in terms of categories?
>(Seriously, there are MANY ways around Russell's anomaly.)

Doesn't it really somehow depend upon what philosophy you adhere to ?

:-)