RUSSELL'S PARADOX SOLVED!

[Graham Cooper]

Naive set theory is inconsistent

only over purely syntactically constructed WFF

with the property phi v ~phi

---------------------

A WFF with the Stipulation phi XOR ~phi

N.S.T. works fine! (a variation thereof)

The CONTRADICTION

rer <-> ~(rer)

is embedded (contained ***) in a sub-formula
and E(r) is proven false.

---------------------

"Double" the N.S.T. axiom.

E(S) A(X) XeS<->phi(X)
<->
E(S) A(X) XeS<->phi(X)

from this Tautology we get

~( E(S) A(X) XeS<->phi(X)
<->
~E(S) A(X) XeS<->phi(X) )

which is a Restrictive Axiom.

then

~( E(r) A(X) Xer<->~XeX
<->
~(rer<->~rer) ) ***

then

~E(r) A(X) Xer<->~XeX
<->
TRUE

then

~E(r) A(X) Xer<->~XeX



--------------------

G. Cooper
BINFTECH UQ

[Graham Cooper]

On May 12, 12:00 pm, me <me154...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So wheres my new baby ? 3 would be a started to replace 11 wivout
> kiddies & after so many kids were lost & potential fathers .. i have
> to add here that in 50 years i was told that 50% of buddies from those
> '1970's' who musta had kiddies yah? died wivout kids & from drugs over
> doses, makes 'it' nasty huh??

R.F.D. rec.org.mensa.eugenics

Again this is a tad out of scope for Russells Paradox,

although I will probably have to leave Australia the government
is hell bent on 20 years of persecution.

Think what they did to Turing but with 21C spy tech!

Gray
--
www.GRAYSSHED.com

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

Russell did not use "tenses" in his "paradox(es);"
the village arber can go to the barber at the next village.

[Graham Cooper]

On May 13, 11:25 am, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> Russell did not use "tenses" in his "paradox(es);"
> the village arber can go to the barber at the next village.

The Set of All Sets that contain themselves is solvable.

STCT = { abstract-things , idealism , curriculum , circular-
references , .... }

since
abstract-things = { .... , abstract-things , .... }
curriculum = { maths, science , teaching , curriculum , ... }
circular-references = { paradoxes , vector-diagrams , circular-
references , .. }

What about the opposite of that set?


Herc
--
www.BLoCKPROLOG.com

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

I maintain that several (most?) of his pradoxes,
were illinguistic, or simply tenseless; or,
too simply contrived.

[Graham Cooper]

On May 13, 11:52 am, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> I maintain that several (most?) of his pradoxes,
> were illinguistic, or simply tenseless; or,
> too simply contrived.
>
>
>

None-the-less it was sufficient to deter simple axiomatizations of set
theory by the fact it was expressible at all.

Herc
--
www.BLoCKPROLOG.com/ZEN.png

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]