Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (extra-standard)

On 11/17/2024 12:30 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 11/16/2024 08:57 PM, Jim Burns wrote:

On 11/16/2024 11:35 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 11/16/2024 08:18 PM, Jim Burns wrote:

On 11/16/2024 7:17 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 11/16/2024 02:46 PM, Jim Burns wrote:

On 11/16/2024 5:31 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 11/16/2024 12:29 PM, Jim Burns wrote:

On 11/16/2024 12:07 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

>

you have ignored Russell his paradox and so on

>
No.
>
Selecting axioms which do not suffer from claiming
  that the set of all non.self.membered sets
  is self.membered or claiming it isn't
is not ignoring Russel,
it is responding to Russell.
>
Russell points out that
_we do not want_ to claim
that the set of all non.self.membered sets
  is self.membered or claiming it isn't.
>
We respond: Okay, we'll stop doing that.

>

Bzzt, flake-out.
It's not pretty the act of making lies.

>

Quote what I wrote which you think is a lie.

>
"We respond"

>
⎛ The modern study of set theory was initiated by
⎜ Georg Cantor and Richard Dedekind in the 1870s.
⎜ However,
⎜ the discovery of paradoxes in naive set theory,
⎜ such as Russell's paradox,
⎜ led to the desire for
⎜ a more rigorous form of set theory
⎝ that was free of these paradoxes.
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zermelo%E2%80%93Fraenkel_set_theory
>
Got anything else?
>
>