Re: How is this collection called?

From: Timothy J. Bruce (uniblab_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 04/08/04 

Date: 7 Apr 2004 15:38:16 -0700

Laconic2 et al:

Russel's Paradox is also neatly sidestepped by Russel's, Whitehead's,
and Church's work in Type Theory, meaning Laws of Form (which may have
much to offer) are not required in this case, making them irrelevent
and orthogonal.

Touché,
Timothy J. Bruce
uniblab@hotmail.com
</RANT>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: dissolving Russels Paradox
    ... 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. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Small Set theory:Revised.
    ... I think that this paradox is a deeper one that I originally ... Type theory is one approach against the Russel paradox. ... And if Ax runs over non-existing sets, does that mean that you want ... For the first time you made bad replies, while all your replies in this ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Small Set theory:Revised.
    ... I think that this paradox is a deeper one that I originally ... Type theory is one approach against the Russel paradox. ... And if Ax runs over non-existing sets, does that mean that you want ... For the first time you made bad replies, while all your replies in this ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Small Set theory:Revised.
    ... I think that this paradox is a deeper one that I originally ... Type theory is one approach against the Russel paradox. ...
    (sci.math)