Re: Is Russell's paradox in fact fraud?
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2017 11:52:06 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <d36cc9a8-8b0f-4c9e-ad5d-8e8a65383847_at_googlegroups.com>
I presented my solution of "Russell's Paradox" at this user group. At that
time, I did not know that Zermelo was the first who discovered this paradox
and the first who solved it.
In this thread, I have underlined that Zermel's solution is given within the
set theory.
My solution is of a general nature. It is at Logic and Semantics level.
Why is it important to make a solution at a general level? The solution at
the general level enables the realization of these complex ideas in computer
technology, artificial intelligence, robotics and advanced software. Of
course, the general solution is most important for scientific theory.
Before presenting my main ideas in solving this paradox, I will present what other scientists have rightly solved in this paradox. After reading Russell's letter, Frege realized that there were some mistakes in his work. In Frege's response to Russell's letter, he wrote the following: „ ... Your discovery of the contradiction caused me the greatest surprise and, I would almost say, consternation, since it has shaken the basis on which I intended to build arithmetic...“.
However, no one has specified exactly where the mistake is. In the first
post of this thread I wrote that Russell did not understand the basic things
of paradox. By the end of his life, Frege remained convinced that he well
defined the concept. Zermelo introduced a kind of constrain but did not
explain the essence of the problem.
My solution is based on semantics and logic (not on sets) and in my opinion
these theories are on higher levels than the set theory. I wrote a lot about
my solution on this user group. Also, you can find my solution on my website
www.dbdesign10.com and www.dbdesign11.com
Note that concepts (predicates) determine plurality, that is a set. In my
solution, attention is paid to elements of sets, rather than to sets.
In the set theory, the basic concept is an object. Elements of a set are
objects. Since a set can be an element of another set, then a set is also an
object.
In my solution, I assume that elements of the set are names of objects
rather than objects.
In my solution, I use Leibniz's law in an altered form. I did four changes
to Leibniz's law:
(i) I introduced the state of the objects rather than the objects.
(ii) I introduced the atomic structures of the objects.
(iii) I introduced the extrinsic properties of the objects, which I added to
the intrinsic
properties of the object. So, the objects in my solution have
intrinsic and extrinsic properties.
(iv) I have introduced the history of events from objects.
Objects that are defined with these changes can also work as objects that have Null values. In addition to Leibniz's law, I have also introduced the identification of objects, attributes and relationships.
Regarding set theory and axioms associated with this paradox, I wrote about this topic and also about identifying of elements of a set, in my thread "A new way for the foundation of set theory".
Vladimir Odrljin Received on Sat Sep 23 2017 - 20:52:06 CEST