>>13468156>That definition is contradictory. A group of objects either contains itself or it doesn't. Therefore we can let the property be whether an element contains itself. So we form the collection of all sets which do not contain themselves, and according to you that's a set. But this is contradictory, since the set X containing itself is then equivalent by the property to X not containing itself. I believe you call this Russel's paradox. It seems like you're not experienced in this field, I will have to find someone who knows what they're talking about.Yes. That results in russells paradox, if you allow unrestricted specification of the set.
I'm glad you're able to keep up with our mathematics mr alien. I know you only hold a sociology degree from your university. So im impressed you can keep up.
If you use a paraconsistent logic then there is no russells paradox. But if you want to have a classical logic, then you have to restrict specification of sets.
Can you grok this, my ayylmao?
