>>24473323
>Because I've told you multiple times now that if you say sets can't contain themselves, then Russell's paradoxical set just becomes equivalent to the "set of all sets".
No, you retard. How many times do I need to tell you? "X does not contain itself" is neither false nor true, it is not a bearer of truth. It cannot be evaluated due to its nonsensical nature.
>Not that this matters but you're also just wrong that we can't define a set by a contradictory property.
Again, this is not what I said. I didn't say it was false. I said it was nonsensical.
>I can define the set X as the set of all real numbers x such that x^2 = -1. Now obviously no real numbers satisfying the condition exist, since the only number that squares to -1 is the imaginary number i. So X is just the empty set. But we can still talk this way in maths.
So what? This has nothing to do with the topic at all.
>We'll just consider the set X which is the set of all sets.
There is no such thing as a set of all sets.
>This is a contradiction though because X is itself a set, so either X is in X, and therefore contains itself, which we just said was impossible; or X is not in X, in which case X cannot be the set of all sets.
And again: it's not an "either ... or" because the very question "Does X contain itself?" has no meaning. It is nonsense.
>And that's proven by the fact that even Frege
Appeal to authority has no place in math. You are disqualified from talking about math.
Here's another Russell style "paradox" for you:
Consider the set {X | bullshit} where bullshit is just meaningless bullshit and can neither be true nor false because it doesn't make sense in the first place. Hahaha, set theory is broken now!
This right here is your and Russell's reasoning.
