# Re: A

Date: 11 Jul 2005 09:01:20 -0700

Message-ID: <1121097680.747322.145470_at_f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>

Paul wrote:

> Jan Hidders wrote:

*> >> 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.
*

*>
*

> So we can't even get to the stage of considering the set of all

*> relations over all domains, because "all domains" is meaningless in set
**> theory! No wonder Cantor went insane... :)
**>
**> Paul.
*

Received on Mon Jul 11 2005 - 18:01:20 CEST