Re: dissolving Russel's Paradox
- From: yuancheng <yuancheng1789@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 04:48:07 EDT
I think set existing after element exists.so we should say 1: To any definite element or elements there is at least a set existing and including them;
if elements a,b,...,there is set A={a,b,...,};
2: to any definite element a, a implicates set A,and we can say a is similar to set A,I use the sign # expressing "similar to",so a # A;A # a;
3: if a # A,b # A,so a # b
4: if element "a" and defining operations or functions we can get a definite set;
for example,if number 1 exists and defining plus,minus we can get set Z;
So,element is the first,set is the second,and any element implicates the set including it;so the Russell's paradox can't exist,we don't need type theory.
the #(similar to) can interpret the natural connection of element and set.we can't define any set without definite element.the problem is how to get the "whole"set of all the first sets?what way?plus,minus,combine?for example.if
A={natural et,rational set,real set},if using combine operation then A=[real set},so A is an element of A?but the fact is : A+ combine operation => B=real set
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Calculus XOR Probability
- Next by Date: Re: Gifted math student
- Previous by thread: Is the positive subset uniquely determinable from an ordered field (F,+,x)?
- Next by thread: Re: dissolving Russel's Paradox
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
