billh04
Posts:
7
Registered:
1/27/11
|
|
Re: This is False. 0/0 {x | x ~e x} e {x | x ~e x} A single Principle
to Resolve Several Paradoxes
Posted:
Feb 4, 2013 9:32 AM
|
|
On Feb 4, 6:26 am, Charlie-Boo <shymath...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 3, 11:53 pm, camgi...@hush.com wrote:> On Feb 4, 2:19 pm, Charlie-Boo <shymath...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > RELATION
> > > > p(a, b, e)
>
> > > If wffs are built on relations then { x | x ~e x } is not a wff
> > > because ~e is not a relation.
>
> > if e(x,y) is a predicate
> > then not(e(x,y)) is a predicate
>
> And more importantly not(e(x,x)) is a predicate (diagonalization.)
>
> Yes, that is Naïve Set Theory, which is correct. But the IF fails.
>
> "e(x,y) is a predicate" is not correct due to diagonalization. There
> is no Russell Paradox, only Russell's Diagonalization.
>
> If e(x,y) were a predicate then not(e(x,x)) would be a predicate but
> because of diagonalization it is not.
>
But, in ZFC, the statement "Ax.not x e x" is true and the statement
"Ex. x e x" is false, among many other such statement. Certainly, e(x,
y) and e(x, x) must be a predicate in ZFC. How can it not be?
|
|
