Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!husc6!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!tektronix!reed!mojo
From: mojo@reed.UUCP (definition)
Newsgroups: sci.math,sci.math.symbolic,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Russell's set of sets which... paradox
Message-ID: <6678@reed.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 23-Jul-87 14:13:25 EDT
Article-I.D.: reed.6678
Posted: Thu Jul 23 14:13:25 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 25-Jul-87 11:22:21 EDT
References: <1214@utx1.UUCP>
Reply-To: mojo@reed.UUCP (definition)
Organization: The Phrench Phry Contingency
Lines: 27
Keywords: set theory, paradox, logic
Summary: no answer expected
Xref: mnetor sci.math:1636 sci.math.symbolic:101 sci.philosophy.tech:298

In article <1214@utx1.UUCP> campbell@utx1.UUCP (Tom Campbell) writes:
}I would like to know if a *satisfactory explaination* has ever
}been given regarding Russell's well-known set theory paradox.
}
}For those who are not familar with it, here it is.
}
}Let S' be a set such that S' has as its elements all and only those
}sets which have the following property:   
}
}              They do not have themselves as elements.
}
}QUESTION: Is S' a set which does not have itself as a member?
}
}
}                                    Thanks, TDC


What would you consider a "satisfactory explanation"?  The only reasonable
analysis I can imagine goes to the point of saying that S' is a member of
itself iff S' is not a member of itself, then breaks down into paradox.

This is a little like asking for a satisfactory explanation of the "This
sentence is false" paradox.

	"Paradox is its own explanation"
	Nathan Tenny
	...tektronix!reed!mojo