Sure. But how does this invalidate Cantor's (or Hessenberg's, if WM is to be believed) proof? Anyone who accepts P(N) accepts impredicativity and TND, so the proof goes through just fine. And anyone who doesn't, does not believe in ZFC, anyway, so this result can't be used for anything. And of section 2 of the "paper", the less said, the better.
WM seems to think that every impredicative set is automatically paradoxical, and that is rot.
> But, it is a triviality. > > Did you consider sending an email? > > Triviality is one of the criteria. > >