The
Russell's paradox has been around a long time. I really wonder why
no one has noticed that "barber shop" example is a false analogy to
the Universal Set. I won't get into the barbershop example as it would
only distract from the logic but I do have a full thread
da na CMIma da .i ganai da CMIma da gi da du da
It is actually inconcievable that da is an Element of da. It is concievable that da is da. Though the contradiction is also true for a complete system it would still just be a reference to the same object -- sa'u da CMIma da du da.
ni'o ny du ro da poi RARna NAMcu
.i la'i .ny. du lu'i ro RARna'u gi
- now we have a set la'iby. du lu'i ny. ce vei ny. ve'o
- ge lu'ida CMIma la'iby. gi ta'o lu'ida nadu la'iby. .i ma'a JIMpe ledu'u da de DRAta
zoi.gy. have a different number of elements as well as transfinite cardinality .gy. ta zoi .gy. Note the { } are necessary to
add the piece of information distinguishing this as a set rather than
an arbitrary list of unrelated numbers.gy.
- ge daduda giku'i da naCMIma da
ni'o ganai la'i da du lu'i da ce de gi daCMImada
.i ku'i ge la'i da nadu lu'i da gi da nadu da .ui.u'i
Let f(x) be any formula of
first order logic
in which da is a free variable.
Definition. The collection la'i abu, denoted lu'i da zo'u da CMIma la'i abu
.o f(x) , is the individual la'i abu satisfying lu'i roda zo'u da CMIma la'i .abu. .o f(x)
to which
Russel says:
ni'o roda zo'u da CMIma da .o da naCMIma da
.idu da CMIma da .o da naCMIma da
to which one might say:
da du da .o da naCMIma da
da .o da naCMIma da
da naCMIma da is actually a fundamental truth.
As is da CMIma da du da
So da naCMIma da can be subsititutied with JETnu
da .o JETnu
da AKA a contradiction