> On 2008-03-10, in sci.math, Julio Di Egidio wrote: > > If you take into account the empty set, your system > can handle > > paradox without being inconsistent. > > You have in mind not the empty set, but rather a > deep-fried banana, > have you not? > > -- > Aatu Koskensilta (firstname.lastname@example.org) > > "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, daruber muss man > schweigen" > - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus > s Logico-Philosophicus
BTW, here is an extract from a letter from Wittgenstein to Russel, 1921, which I think sheds some light (I'm afraid I'll have to traslate, I've got it in Italian):
"I believe our problems track down to _atomic_ propositions. You'll see it if you try to precisely explain how the Copula is such propositions has meaning. I cannot explain it and I believe that, once an exact answer is given to this question, the problem of <<v>> and of the apparent variable will be _much_ nearer its solution, if not solved. Now I think above <<Socrates is a man>> (the good old Socrates!)."
The good old Ludwig!!
Explaining that meaning, by means of the empty set "we" are, is indeed what I have shown (again, until dis-proved).