Quote:
|
Originally Posted by <<>> I know, and I believe Michelle also knows, what you mean. But it's simply not like that. Now please I don't want to keep on this absurd discussion, if you want carry it on in your thread, but I want to centre my thread in the theme. |
why is it simply not like that?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Guille All you want to see in my reply to your post is really what you say, you never ask for answers, you only ask for your answer, which anyway you know... You want me to tell you simply that Russell, Whitehead, Hilbert and even Godel were wrong, and that you are right. . |
First of all I just want to say that I never said Godel was wrong. What I said, quite to the contrary, was that Godel was right. Godel said that the complete truth must be inconsistent. Therefore I agree with Godel. So you've got me backwards sadly. I also never disagreed with Russell, I stated his paradox exactly as he stated it. And I'm not even familiar with the other folks you mentioned so I don't see how you can claim I said they are wrong if I don't know what they said. Can you please tell me what they said? The name Whitehead sounds familiar.
And I do ask for answers, because I wish to see what others think, which is why I will ask you this question. Is there a set which is not itself other than possibly the empty set? Also, for a set that is itself, is there any good reason why we should not consider that the set itself serves as the zeroth member of itself? THis is all very logical and I think you should take it seriously as a serious conjecture. Thank you