Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!munnari!mundoe!gcs From: gcs@mundoe.mu.oz (Geoff Smith) Newsgroups: sci.math,sci.math.symbolic,sci.philosophy.tech Subject: Re: Russell's set of sets which... paradox Message-ID: <278@mundoe.mu.oz> Date: Tue, 28-Jul-87 01:30:42 EDT Article-I.D.: mundoe.278 Posted: Tue Jul 28 01:30:42 1987 Date-Received: Wed, 29-Jul-87 05:37:55 EDT References: <1214@utx1.UUCP> <6678@reed.UUCP> <423@ecrcvax.UUCP> Reply-To: gcs@mundoe.mu.oz.UUCP (Geoff Smith) Followup-To: sci.math Distribution: world Organization: Mathematics, University of Melbourne Lines: 33 Keywords: set theory, paradox, logic Summary: A word in your ear. Xref: mnetor sci.math:1670 sci.math.symbolic:110 sci.philosophy.tech:312 In article <423@ecrcvax.UUCP> andy@ecrcvax.UUCP (Andrew Dwelly) writes: >Regarding this paradox, G Spencer Brown, makes an interesting comment in >his book "The laws of form" (Dutton, New York) > >"Recalling Russell's connection with the Theory of Types, it was with some >trepidation that I approached him in 1967 with the proof it was >unnecessary. To my relief he was delighted. The Theory was, he said, the >most arbitary thing he and Whitehead had ever had to do, not really a >theory but a stopgap, and he was glad to have lived long enough to see >the matter resolved. > >Put as simply as I can make it the resolution is as follows....." > The dates of the Bertrand Russell are 1872-1970. In the year 1967 he became 95 years old. He was, of course, a great man in various ways, but - how can one put this kindly - his sense of mathematical judgement may not have been as acute as it once had been. This is one possible explanation for these alleged remarks about _Laws_of_Form_ - if they are in fact an accurate reflection on his thoughts at the time. Another possible explanation might be Russell's good-manners. Incidentally, the title _Laws_of_Form_ rather echoes George Boole's _Laws_of_Thought_ (1854). Modest eh? Spencer-Brown claimed to have solved the four-colour problem back in the sixties. Despite being given every chance to explain himself he was unable to convince the mathematical establishment of the correctness of his methods. Need one say more? Geoff Smith,Maths Dept,Univ of Melbourne and sometime of Bath,UK