(February 16, 2012 at 9:44 pm)AthiestAtheist Wrote: Nothing you said had anything to do with my post.
Yes I did, and I though my answer was clear, oh well.
I'll try again, reversing Russel's Paradox its still a paradox. In the mainstream set theory, the Russel's paradox is avoided by use of Axioms, based on our common perceptions. On the other hand you proposed the reversal and didn't said anything worth about it, so what is it that you are saying? Do you even know what a paradox is?
Quote: Did you read beyond the title?
How pedantic! I did read and I did gave my 2 cents about it, not that was a big post or with plenty of content, to be honest your post is vague and I don't see a reason for this post I'm quoting. Are you proposing to me to build a mathematical model on a paradox? Are you mad?
In my final remark, I gave my amateur mathematician's idea on why Russel's paradox happens, i.e. a 'flaw' on the usual math language, like the case of the antimony:
"This sentence is false"
