I abolished Russell's paradox a using a knowledge ontology.

Since no thing (physical or conceptual) can totally contain itself such
that its outer physical or conceptual boundary is contained within this
same physical or conceptual boundary then we can know that no set can be
a member of itself.

This becomes more clear when we try to draw a Venn diagram of a set that
contains itself that it not a Venn diagram of an identical set.

--
Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

On 10/18/2021 11:14 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2021-10-18 09:56, olcott wrote:
>> I abolished Russell's paradox a using a knowledge ontology.
>
> You did this? All by yourself?
>
> Russell's paradox is only a problem for *naive* set theory. It hasn't
> been a problem for set theory since 1908. Neither Russell's own set
> theory based on the theory of types nor ZF(C) suffer from Russell's
> paradox.
>
> So how is your proposal different from theirs or in any way original?
>
>> Since no thing (physical or conceptual) can totally contain itself
>> such that its outer physical or conceptual boundary is contained
>> within this same physical or conceptual boundary then we can know that
>> no set can be a member of itself.
>
> You can't make inferences about how sets behave based on how physical
> objects behave since sets are not physical objects. Both Russell's
> theory of types and ZFC avoid Russell's paradox, but they do so without
> making silly arguments like the above.
>

The base class of the definition of physical and conceptual total
containment from which physical and conceptual total containment
inherits its base semantic meaning is essentially an axiom that
stipulates that no physical or conceptual thing can totally contain
itself. This axiom prohibits a set from totally containing itself thus
prohibits a set from being a member of itself.

Until the architectural design of a universal knowledge ontology is
specified with perfect coherence (thus eliminating all paradoxes and
undecidable decision problems) strong AI will never be fully coherent.

Once we overcome Tarski's undefinability theorem
https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf

then and only then will we have fully anchored Davidson's truth
conditional semantics.

>> This becomes more clear when we try to draw a Venn diagram of a set
>> that contains itself that it not a Venn diagram of an identical set.
>
> Venn diagrams are not set theory. They are simply a tool useful for
> solving very *simple* problems in logic and set theory.
>
> André
>

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered
violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein

On 10/18/2021 12:10 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2021-10-18 10:44, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/18/2021 11:14 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2021-10-18 09:56, olcott wrote:
>>>> I abolished Russell's paradox a using a knowledge ontology.
>>>
>>> You did this? All by yourself?
>>>
>>> Russell's paradox is only a problem for *naive* set theory. It hasn't
>>> been a problem for set theory since 1908. Neither Russell's own set
>>> theory based on the theory of types nor ZF(C) suffer from Russell's
>>> paradox.
>>>
>>> So how is your proposal different from theirs or in any way original?
>>>
>>>> Since no thing (physical or conceptual) can totally contain itself
>>>> such that its outer physical or conceptual boundary is contained
>>>> within this same physical or conceptual boundary then we can know
>>>> that no set can be a member of itself.
>>>
>>> You can't make inferences about how sets behave based on how physical
>>> objects behave since sets are not physical objects. Both Russell's
>>> theory of types and ZFC avoid Russell's paradox, but they do so
>>> without making silly arguments like the above.
>>>
>>
>> The base class of the definition of physical and conceptual total
>> containment from which physical and conceptual total containment
>> inherits its base semantic meaning is essentially an axiom that
>> stipulates that no physical or conceptual thing can totally contain
>> itself. This axiom prohibits a set from totally containing itself thus
>> prohibits a set from being a member of itself.
>
> Classes and sets are two different things. And neither corresponds to
> the notion of C++ classes which is what you seem to be talking about above.
>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)

When we define what a {set} is within a knowledge ontology the concept
of {set} inherits its base semantic meaning from the concept of {total
containment}.

> Russell's paradox is about *sets*.
>
> If you want to talk about either classes or C++, it isn't relevant.
>
> André
>

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

olcott wrote:
> I abolished Russell's paradox a using a knowledge ontology.
>
> Since no thing (physical or conceptual) can totally contain itself such
> that its outer physical or conceptual boundary is contained within this
> same physical or conceptual boundary then we can know that no set can be
> a member of itself.
>
> This becomes more clear when we try to draw a Venn diagram of a set that
> contains itself that it not a Venn diagram of an identical set.

Venn diagrams are not a useful method for determining the truth or
falsity of statements about sets.
>

--
The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here
Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg

On 10/19/2021 12:48 PM, Peter wrote:
> olcott wrote:
>> I abolished Russell's paradox a using a knowledge ontology.
>>
>> Since no thing (physical or conceptual) can totally contain itself
>> such that its outer physical or conceptual boundary is contained
>> within this same physical or conceptual boundary then we can know that
>> no set can be a member of itself.
>>
>> This becomes more clear when we try to draw a Venn diagram of a set
>> that contains itself that it not a Venn diagram of an identical set.
>
> Venn diagrams are not a useful method for determining the truth or
> falsity of statements about sets.
>>
>
>

Venn diagrams conclusively prove that a set that is a member of itself
cannot be distinguished from a pair of identical sets in both cases we
only have a single circle. This shows that a set being a member of
itself is incoherent.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

olcott wrote:
> On 10/19/2021 12:48 PM, Peter wrote:
>> olcott wrote:
>>> I abolished Russell's paradox a using a knowledge ontology.
>>>
>>> Since no thing (physical or conceptual) can totally contain itself
>>> such that its outer physical or conceptual boundary is contained
>>> within this same physical or conceptual boundary then we can know
>>> that no set can be a member of itself.
>>>
>>> This becomes more clear when we try to draw a Venn diagram of a set
>>> that contains itself that it not a Venn diagram of an identical set.
>>
>> Venn diagrams are not a useful method for determining the truth or
>> falsity of statements about sets.
>>>
>>
>>
>
> Venn diagrams conclusively prove that a set that is a member of itself
> cannot be distinguished from a pair of identical sets in both cases we
> only have a single circle. This shows that a set being a member of
> itself is incoherent.
>

Are you identifying sets with the things depicted in Venn diagrams?

--
The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here
Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg

olcott wrote:
> On 10/19/2021 12:48 PM, Peter wrote:
>> olcott wrote:
>>> I abolished Russell's paradox a using a knowledge ontology.
>>>
>>> Since no thing (physical or conceptual) can totally contain itself
>>> such that its outer physical or conceptual boundary is contained
>>> within this same physical or conceptual boundary then we can know
>>> that no set can be a member of itself.
>>>
>>> This becomes more clear when we try to draw a Venn diagram of a set
>>> that contains itself that it not a Venn diagram of an identical set.
>>
>> Venn diagrams are not a useful method for determining the truth or
>> falsity of statements about sets.
>>>
>>
>>
>
> Venn diagrams conclusively prove

Do you lack self-awareness? If not, are you ever embarrassed by your
own stupidity?

> that a set that is a member of itself
> cannot be distinguished from a pair of identical sets in both cases we
> only have a single circle. This shows that a set being a member of
> itself is incoherent.
>

--
The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here
Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg