Recent content by Owen4x

Hurkyl: "Own4x, your post doesn't really make sense." ? Originally Posted by Owen4x You have shown that {x:x∉x} is not a member of U, Hurkyl "On the hypothesis that U exists, it does indeed follow that {x:x∉x} is not a member of U." Whether 'U exists' or not, {x:x∉x} is not a member of any...

I don't agree. You have not shown that "There is no set that contains every set". You have shown that {x:x∉x} is not a member of U, but you admit that {x:x∉x} is not a set! To be a member of the set of all sets (U) is to be an existent set. To be a member of a set {x:Fx}, is to satisy Fx...

Agreed, ~(My bedroom door is open) is true and ~(My bedroom door is closed) is true. There is no thing that (My bedroom door) is, if there is no door in my bedroom. We cannot say what My bedroom door is, but, we can say what it is not. Russell's analysis of 'The present king of France'...