all sets contain themselves.

so the set of all sets that dont contain themselves is empty.

i didnt even need 3-valued logic.

my system is strong , even stronger then you suspected.

( unfortunately currently not strong enough ( afak ) to be used in advanced number theory ... well if that is even possible from basic set theory / mereology / logic ideas ... then again i have proof of RH , Andrica and Twins and a weak generalization of those 3 [ collatz , beal , abc and hardy-littlewood seem unattackable ! :( ] )

the derivative of a differentiable real to real f(x) is

lim h-> 0 [f(x+h) - f(x)] / h

= lim n-> 'oo' [f(x+1/n) - f(x)] * n

hence the infinitesimal h = lim n-> 'oo' 1/n

i write 'oo' to avoid confusion with lim n-> oo 1/n = 0.

since afterall an infinitesimal is not 0.

=> conclusion 1 : h = lim n-> 'oo' 1/n

secondly 1,2,3,... w , where w = 'oo'.

'oo' is often called potential infinity ( or unbounded )
whereas oo is called actual infinity.

that is a recurring theme amongst critics , but also it appears in calculus e.g. divergence at the boundary ( consider radius = 1 , map oo to 1 and 'oo' is then the edge of the interior. ) or irrationality ( a limiting infinite sum of fractions is rational for all partial sums ( 'oo' ) but yet represents an irrational ( oo terms ) )

=> conclusion 2 : w = 'oo' = lim n -> 'oo'  n

hence when we solve : w * h = 1

we reduce by replacement using conclusion 1 and 2 :

lim n-> 'oo'  n * lim n-> 'oo' 1/n = 1

=>  lim n -> 'oo'  n  *  1/n  =  1

which is trivially true since n / n = 1

this also avoids ordinals cardinals and set axioms !

and you dont need to read all of newton either !

and we have our infinitesimal measure.

Q.E.D.

im skeptical of the quantum part at the moment , but indeed i have discussed this at university with ' IT people ' and we agreed on many things ( most dont dare to publish about it though , not surprising since i consider even myself a partial skeptic ).

regards