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 ? :-)