# Re: A

From: Paul <paul_at_test.com>

Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 13:04:36 +0100

Message-ID: <42d26054$0$2890$ed2e19e4_at_ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net>

> It wouldn't. But the question at hand was whether the collection of all

Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 13:04:36 +0100

Message-ID: <42d26054$0$2890$ed2e19e4_at_ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net>

>> Doesn't this only apply if you are considering the set of all relations >> over all domains? What if you restrict yourself to a finite set of >> domains? I can't see how Cantor's Paradox would apply in this case.

*>*> It wouldn't. But the question at hand was whether the collection of all

*> relations can be a domain. If you are going to postualte the set of**> domains a priori, then the set of relations over those domains will of**> course not be one of those postulated domains.*OK. but domains can be thought of as simply sets. So then the "collection of all domains" is like the "set of all sets" which, by Cantor's Paradox, isn't actually a well-defined set.

Paul. Received on Mon Jul 11 2005 - 14:04:36 CEST