Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 22:33:30 +0200
From: Metin Aktay <maktay-AT-superonline.com>
Subject: Re: PLC: sets


Eric Yost wrote:
> 
> Is the set-of-all-sets an element of itself?  Just curious, you know.

set-of-all-sets is a paradoxical definition, for by definition it should
include itself, and the itself it includes should include itself as
well, making it a never-ending-story-of-inclusive-inclusions, as in the
box-within-a-box-within-a-box-within-a-box-and-so-on analogy.

a more usable definition would be set-of-all-except-for-itself.

then again, with tongue in cheek, i refer to the movie "men in black" in
which the missing galaxy turns out to be dangling from the collar of a
cat on a planet in the same galaxy.

metin aktay



     --- from list phillitcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---