Quote:
|
Originally Posted by subversion again you are exactly and ironically correct dleviwing. I DON"T need to read books to acquire knowledge, because all I need is my brain. This is a good thing, because afterall, the TOE does not currently exist in any books. You should have known that! Sadly, however, I am mortal.
A set that contains everything must contain itself, I agree. Also an empty set is null, I agree. So how does it change this fact?
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. |
The explanation f why your solution is wrong is not only 1 sentence, but is short, here I give step to step. Please don't carry on arguing that it reduces to your solution, because it doesn't:
The logical idea of a set that contains something is refeared to the fact that the set, for example S is equal to the following elements {a,b,c,d} such that S contains {a}, {b}, {c}, {d}. In some cases, the requierements to enter a set include that set itself, and then S={a,b,c,d,S} which means that S contains itself. But there are many sets that dont' containt themeselves. For example, the "set of all dogs" isn't a dog itself (the set), so it doesn't contain itself. But the "set of all sets that can be described in less than 30 words" includes itself as it is described in 12 words and a number.
Therefore the set of all sets that do not contain themselves is not an empty set or irrelevant.