[subversion]

Good news!

I was just driving around after having done some posting and I realized something. I know the solution to Russell's paradox!

I only just became familiar with the paradox a few days ago when it was mentioned on this site but now I think I've solved it. This reiterates to me the fact that I have the ability to solve any paradox and that since I solved this paradox I must be correct about my other theories as well.

Anyway, here's the solution. Correct me if I'm wrong because as I said I haven't studied Russell's paradox in depth, but from what I gather it essentially asks the question "does the set of all sets which do not contain themselves contain itself?" The simple answer is this "no, the set of all sets which do not contain themselves does not necessarily contain itself because the set of all sets which do not contain themselves is simply the empty set." Now I say necessarily because whether the empty set, which is nothing, contains itself or not is actually an irrelevant question. For clarity we say by default that the empty set does not contain itself, but this is not necessarily true. To understand this we must look at the simple definition of something.

Anything which is something automatically contains itself by simply being itself. In this manner the Earth contains itself because it is itself. Nothing (i.e. the empty set) on the other hand is not considered to be something and thus either it simultaneously contains AND does not contain itself or it simultaneously neither contains nor does not contain itself OR it simultaneously neither contains itself nor doesn't contain itself while simultaneously containing AND not containing itself. So that's basically a really long and confusing way of saying that whether or not the empty set contains itself is an irrelevant question because the empty set has no value. So in conclusion I will state that the solution to Russell's paradox is that the set of all sets which do not contain themselves is simply the empty set and whether the empty set contains itself or not is an irrelevant question because the empty set has no value.

Now the purpose of this thread is two fold. First of all you will tell me if you think my solution to Russell's paradox is correct or not (also tell me if I have even stated the paradox correctly or not). The official solution I am positing is what I have underlined above. Second you may offer any paradox you wish for me to solve. It is my firm belief that as the Theory of Everything is correct I should likewise be able to solve any paradox I am presented with. So this is an open invitation. Here is a list of paradoxes which I have already solved and the name of who originally devloped the theory/paradox

The Incompleteness Theorem (Kurt Godell)
The Axiom of Choice (Ernst Zermelo)
Russell's Paradox (Bertrand Russell)
The Law of Laws (Lee Walstad)
The Theory of Everything (Lee Walstad)
Guille's Time Paradox (Guille)

thanks for reading, I look forward to yall's opinions and paradoxes. I'm not guaranteeing I can solve all paradoxes but I'm fairly confident in my abilities.

best regards, SubVersion