Quote:
|
Originally Posted by harmonygirl Sub,
I don't agree that a set would contain a zeroth element which is itself. When you define a set in this way, it defeats the question about whether a set can contain itself. I don't think that the set of all apples contains as a zeroth element the notion of the set of all apples. In my definition of the set of all apples, it ONLY contains all apples. |
and all apples is itself, therefore it contains itself. Oh, and BTW defeating the question about whether a set can contain itself is the whole point. That's what you call the absolution of the paradox.