[isabelle] A tautological error?



Hi all,

the Russel's Paradox constitutes a surprise:

Doesn't it ignore the Subject-Object-Relation of all statement?No definition might define it's own definition. As someone upheld a recursive function here: Any recursive function must be defined before calling it, the recursion is no defining-process, it comes afterwards.

Kind of a tautological error?
As far as Cantor is the guilty, well, Russell should have rejected Cantors exaggeration...

Cheers,

Andreas




This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail (Mailman edition) and MHonArc.