Date: Mar 28, 2013 12:24 PM
Author: Paul
Subject: Re: Using classes instead of sets

On Thursday, March 28, 2013 3:11:31 PM UTC, Frederick Williams wrote:

> ...
> If groups could have classes for the collection of their elements, and
> if we call such groups "Groups", then we couldn't call the collection of
> Groups a set or a class, could we?


I don't see why not. Without further restrictions, the collection of Groups would seem to be too big to be a set, but your Groups could form a class, I would think. Classes are allowed to contain other classes after all. Of course, we get Russell-type paradoxes if we allow entities to contain themselves, whether the entities be sets or classes.

Paul Epstein