Re: Does the phrase " Russell's paradox " should be replaced with another phrase?

Dana subota, 6. prosinca 2014. 16:32:11 UTC+1, korisnik Ed Prochak napisao je:
> While I found this message interesting, I think think you will get more feedback by posting in the sci.math group.

This my post, is very related to the theory databases and I think it speaks  about things that are more important than Russell's Paradox. I will mention just two of the many reasons that this post is placed on group for the theory of databases:

1. Here are introduced sets whose elements denote objects. Such sets are typical for databases. However Set Theory is about arbitrary sets. These sets, whose elements denote some objects are associated with complex issues. For example, on this user group for the first time was shown why a surrogate key is a bad solution. Let me mention that two well-known theories - RM / T and object oriented approach - use surogatte key.
2. Notice that I am using two semantic procedures, which are presented in this thread. Although I do not use the axioms of set theory, I have pointed out, the fact that some important axioms may be constructed from Frege's definitions of concepts and extensions. Also identification could be presented by axioms. After such axiomatization, we could build the data model that is based on sets.

--
However I agree with you, that I should present this solution of Russell's 
Paradox at  (international) mathematical community. Maybe later I will do 
that, but now in this moment I am very busy.

Vladimir Odrljin