Text File

Aucbvax.6568 net.math utcsrgv!utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!wildbill Thu Mar 18 11:52:58 1982 Re: Set Theory Paradox The catch is not that set theory doesn't explain the paradox. In fact, it does so extremely well. The problem is that that object which you are so blithely calling a "set" \\is not actually a set//. Loosely stated (and it has been about 5 years since I sat in on a graduate-level logic/foundations course in which you go through such contortions very rigorously), the basic criterion for calling something a "set" is that it be possible to determine for every object whether or not that object belongs to your hypothetical set. Since this object (normally called a class) does not have that property, it is not a set. For more details, check out any standard reference on set theory. Be forewarned, though--such texts can be extremely heavy going.

----------------------------------------------------------------- gopher://quux.org/ conversion by John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org> of http://communication.ucsd.edu/A-News/

This Usenet Oldnews Archive article may be copied and distributed freely, provided:

1. There is no money collected for the text(s) of the articles.

2. The following notice remains appended to each copy:

The Usenet Oldnews Archive: Compilation Copyright (C) 1981, 1996 Bruce Jones, Henry Spencer, David Wiseman.