Dear Stan,
> On 20 Mar 2018, at 20:22, Stanley N Salthe wrote:
>
> Bruno -- In this context I like to point out the constraints on our abilities
> of perception. First, we are physical.
That is a strong metaphysical assumption. See my paper for showing this is not

Dear Arturo,
Sorry for my naive question, but isn't the named set theory something
different from the set theory?
Best,
Michel.
2018-03-22 7:48 GMT+01:00 :
> Dear Mark,
> the named set theory does not solve the Russell paradox.
> Therefore it would be better to use, in

Dear Mark and Colleagues,
Thank you for the nice remarks!
The concept “INFOS” had been proposed in the end of 1989.
The second part of the General Information Theory (GIT) is just the “Theory of
INFOS”.
The are many interesting ideas about INFOS, some of them you have pointed.
Step by step I

Dear Mark,
the named set theory does not solve the Russell paradox.
Therefore it would be better to use, in such approaches, the best theory
available, i.e., the Fraenkel-Zermelo sets.
In turn, the latter displays some limits: for example, the need of a set with
infinite elements.