Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!husc6!cmcl2!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: sci.math,sci.math.symbolic,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Russell's set of sets which... paradox
Message-ID: <6160@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 23-Jul-87 18:52:19 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-smok.6160
Posted: Thu Jul 23 18:52:19 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 25-Jul-87 09:08:39 EDT
References: <1214@utx1.UUCP>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) )
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 5
Keywords: set theory, paradox, logic
Xref: mnetor sci.math:1631 sci.math.symbolic:100 sci.philosophy.tech:294

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.)