Talk:Russell's paradox
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Russell's paradox article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days  |
 | This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
"The set of all sets that do not contain themselves" listed at Redirects for discussion
edit
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The set of all sets that do not contain themselves. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. NineFiveSeven 18:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Its definition is like the like the set R in the article: i.e. x belongs to R if and only if x does not belong to x (however, determine whether a positive integer x is a Russell number may be very difficult, the smallest unknown x is 319) 2402:7500:917:8A69:2C6E:A04F:8752:A7E0 (talk) 05:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Axiom of extensionality
editThe "Formal presentation" section begin with a description of the Axiom of extensionality. However I don't see how this axiom is relevant nor that it is used anywhere in the rest of the section, which just uses Comprehension, Existential instantiation and Universal instantiation. Extentionality is also not mentioned in the source cited. Should the reference to extentionality be deleted? CodeTalker (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2023 (UTC)