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.)