Re: An instance of Russell's paradox?

Douglas Eagleson wrote:
> I am familiar with the atom of LISP and the atom to take many class
> elements is indeed abstractable to "the socrates a philosopher."
>
> Making the second order element class possible.
>
> A paradox of the kind of Russell is resolved by the complier at compile
> time. Abstract element is possible in computer structure. While in
> most textbooks the question of the exact relation to relate is an open
> one.
>
> And so your finding is indeed the question. A certain element as
> opposed to the abstract element implies, "the socrates the philosopher"
> as either.
>
> What paradox? And so the Prolog statement is to relate the first to
> the second order?
>
> Maybe, I am not fammiliar enough with Prolog.
>
> A validity of the statement is possible using the complier function of
> runtime class instantation. A valid second order class satisfies the
> relation of all orders to the next.
>
> So, making the class test itself appears the discovery of the correct
> relation of all orders of logic.
>
> Making all paradox resolved, in LISP and C at least.
>
> Douglas Eagleson
> Gaithersburg, MD USA
>
> ps. I hope I am clear. I am trying to write the generalized nth order
> validity checker. And your question is the kind I need to help me.
> Thanks.

I must be honest with you. I am a complete novice, and the content of
the reply you kindly posted is just too advanced for me. I am most
greateful for your input (mind you, now I starting _helping people in
Sci.Logic ;-)

Thank you for writing.

Tom

.