I'm not sure that it would actually. The plenitude would include all
sets that don't contain themselves, as well as sets that do. We know
the plenitude contains itself. However, since the set of all sets that
don't contain themselves is a logical contradiction, it is presumably
excluded from the plenitude in just the same way as square circles are.

So this still doesn't imply that the plenitude is not a set, only that
the set of all sets that don't contain themselves is not a subset of
the plenitude. (Perhaps this make it not a set ??)


Brent Meeker wrote:
> Hello Russell
> On 07-Mar-01, Russell Standish wrote:
> >> From the dim recesses of my memory, "the set of all sets" is a
> >> logical
> > contradiction, although I can't remember why. Is the plenitude like
> > the "set of all sets" in some way?
> It would include the set of all sets which are not members of themselves
> - but the existence of this set is self-contradictory.
> Brent Meeker

Dr. Russell Standish                     Director
High Performance Computing Support Unit, Phone 9385 6967                    
UNSW SYDNEY 2052                         Fax   9385 6965                    
Australia                                [EMAIL PROTECTED]             
Room 2075, Red Centre                    http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks

Reply via email to