Re: A
From: Paul <paul_at_test.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 17:21:57 +0100
Message-ID: <42d29ca5$0$2863$ed2e19e4_at_ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 17:21:57 +0100
Message-ID: <42d29ca5$0$2863$ed2e19e4_at_ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net>
vc wrote:
>>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.
>
> In "naive" set theory, yes, in ZF, no. There is no problem with
> defining a "set of all domains" provided that the set satisfies ZF
> axioms.
So couldn't our "set of all domains" be a valid domain itself? And thus a member of itself?
Paul. Received on Mon Jul 11 2005 - 18:21:57 CEST