[michellemfry]

Hi Subversion,

This is just an example, but I do not belong to myself, I belong to another. I can assure you that I exist. Just think on that, please. It is the way of nature.
Sincerely,

[Guille]

Originally Posted by subversion anything has to belong to itself to exist. There's no need arguing about it.

We all want to advance, progress, change, evolve and develop. But there is a wall in front: it's you. I'm not criticising you, it's just the fact: you don't want to accept that your solution for russell's paradox is something independent to the paradox and to set theory. That what you say 'belongs' or 'contains' is not what is discussed.

And as starter of the thread, I ask you to keep around Russell's paradox or I'll have to start editting posts.

[subversion]

Originally Posted by michellemfry Hi Subversion, This is just an example, but I do not belong to myself, I belong to another. I can assure you that I exist. Just think on that, please. It is the way of nature. Sincerely,

but physically speaking you belong to yourself. Do you physically exist inside somebody else? No, you physically exist inside yourself. You know what I'm talking about

[subversion]

Originally Posted by <<>> We all want to advance, progress, change, evolve and develop. But there is a wall in front: it's you. I'm not criticising you, it's just the fact: you don't want to accept that your solution for russell's paradox is something independent to the paradox and to set theory. That what you say 'belongs' or 'contains' is not what is discussed. And as starter of the thread, I ask you to keep around Russell's paradox or I'll have to start editting posts.

Yes Guille, but the reason the paradox comes about is because set theory does not understand that any set, in order to exist, is the zeroth member of itself. duh

[Guille]

Originally Posted by subversion but physically speaking you belong to yourself. Do you physically exist inside somebody else? No, you physically exist inside yourself. You know what I'm talking about

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.

Originally Posted by subversion Yes Guille, but the reason the paradox comes about is because set theory does not understand that any set, in order to exist, is the zeroth member of itself. duh

Yes, sub... Sure, sub... True, sub... That's what you want to read, well sorry it won't come deliberate. It will come if it's merit, if you earn it, and I see no reason yet to believe I should give it to you... 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. Well I tell you not to want so many things, not to espect so much of the world, and you will have so many things, the world will feel to have given you too much to you...

[subversion]

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?

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

[dustin_archibald]

I dont' think I agree that something has to belong to itself to exist. However, something can belong to a set where there is only one elemnt and that element is itself.

A= an item with properties
B={A}= the set of elements that have exactly the same properties as A

This is not the same as saying A belongs to itself. Rather it says that A belongs to a set where all the elements have exactly the same properties as A. B is a set or a grouping of elements, it does not equal it's elements.

[subversion]

Originally Posted by dustin_archibald I dont' think I agree that something has to belong to itself to exist. However, something can belong to a set where there is only one elemnt and that element is itself. A= an item with properties B={A}= the set of elements that have exactly the same properties as A This is not the same as saying A belongs to itself. Rather it says that A belongs to a set where all the elements have exactly the same properties as A. B is a set or a grouping of elements, it does not equal it's elements.

Good argument Dustin. But I would like you to justify your statement "I don't think that something has to belong to itself." You state your belief but never offer any reasoning for it. For example, my reasoning that something does contain itself and is self-belonging is that something is a real object, because it is full, complete unto itself, and real of it's own substance which is actual substance not nothingness. The actual substance it is full and complete with is it's own substance because if it was made of something else it would be something else. So in short something should, with reason, always be itself. This means it contains itself.

A set can contain just one element, that's true, that would be considered a first element. But the set itself theoretically always contains a zeroth element, itself, in order to exist, because this is how we can theoretically distinguish between a real set and a false set. Any false set is the empty set because it is not real. The zeroth element of the empty set would just be zero, that is why we say it has no zeroth element, and thus it is not a set.

Now we can surely pretend that empty sets, false sets which do not contain themselves as their own self, are real, but this does not apply to the real world because all real objects contain themselves, by the reasoning I gave you, and thus it is a huge theoretical dead end and fallacy to go down the path that makes a bunch of statements which are irrelevant because they are literally about nothing, i.e. the empty set, much the same way as how the math of string theory may be true but that doesn't mean the theory isn't irrelevant and fictitious and a huge dead end.

So in conclusion is there a just reason why you think that something does not belong to itself, because I think this may be a logical fallacy? Also, if the sum of all the elements in a set is (the zeroth element) equal to the whole set which is equal to itself, then why is it not also true that the whole set which is equal to itself (the zeroth element) is equal to all the other elements combined?

just wondering, subversion

[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.

[dustin_archibald]

Originally Posted by subversion But I would like you to justify your statement "I don't think that something has to belong to itself." You state your belief but never offer any reasoning for it.

My reasoning was stated in the post which shows that the definition of the example set doesn't allow for the ideas you are describing. The example set of B={A} has elements with properties exactly the same as A. If what you are proposing was true

if
B = {A}
then
B = {{A},A}
then
{A}={{A},A}

However {A} <> {{A},A}. In other words the set of A does not contain the set of A since the set of A's properties are not exactly the same as those of A. The definition of the set of A is that it contains all elements whose properties exactly match those of A. A, however, is not a set, it is an item or entity. Thus the properties of A do not match the properties of the set of A

Originally Posted by subversion The actual substance it is full and complete with is it's own substance because if it was made of something else it would be something else. So in short something should, with reason, always be itself. This means it contains itself.

Something is not made up of itself. It is made of a number of other substances to create it. For example, a cookie is not made up of cookies. It is made up of the ingredients that, when combined, give it definition as a cookie.