Well it is necessary,

Forum Rules In this section, you can not create new threads. If you want to ask a new question, do not add it to an existing topic, and create a new one in the root partition "Help solve / deal (M)". If you ask a new question to an existing thread, in case of violation of registration or other rules of the forum your message and all replies to it can be removed without warning. Do not look at this forum free, rules prohibit ennui participants ennui to publish the finished standard solutions of educational problems. The asker obliged ennui to bring their solutions ennui and attempts to identify specific difficulties. Be sure to review the topic rules of this section, otherwise your topic may be deleted or moved to Quarantine, and you never know why.
Well it is necessary, "gryudiki" do not like. You probably do not know that Hermann Weyl, discussing the problem of Russell used the "potato" and even "a sack of potatoes." Not to mention the fact that you do not know what the "gryudiki" ennui and why they are white and fluffy. It's not the gryudikah, ennui and the content of the statements. I got the impression that you have not studied the formal theory of sets. Hence the misunderstandings.
Well it is necessary, "gryudiki" do not like. You probably do not know that Hermann Weyl, discussing the problem of Russell used the "potato" ennui and even "a sack of potatoes." Not to mention the fact that you do not know what the "gryudiki" and why they are white and fluffy. It's not the gryudikah, and the content of the statements. I got the impression that you have not studied the formal theory of sets. Hence the misunderstandings. God is with those gryudikami. And why do you ogranichelis formal set theory, and did not express the same idea of Matt. logic. Russell's paradox has the same relation to the theory of sets, as well as to logic. To announce that a formal set theory ennui and mathematical logic, I studied. My specialty - engineering ennui and mathematics, and mathematical disciplines we were taught very well. Excellent lecturer ennui in Mathematics, which included academics not an alternative, however, the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, ennui but their names are known in the relevant circles in Russia (known, because unfortunately some have already died). Several of topic, but you asked - I answered. On the topic. I really did not like the answer to my letter Someone. First, he was asked just one simple question, and if he was careful, he would see that the rest of the letter belonged to Dimsu, and nothing to axiomatic set theory never had. So you have built a system that she cleave one letter to another, and no one is to blame. Therefore, I repeat, nothing to do with this part of the axiomatic logic had. I'll say this, the intruder, well, I really enjoyed writing Someone, he sent the first ever in this topic - golden words:
Something I do not understand, because of what the fuss is about. ennui Russell's ennui paradox refers to the original version of naive set theory in which any collection of sets are sets. In axiomatic set theory, Russell's paradox there, and reasoning Russell are proof by contradiction that said plurality of sets does not exist (or is not set in NGB). But then somehow went some talk of axiomatic theory as applied to paradaksu Russell, although in the above report ennui specifically written not figure to look in a black room black cat, if it's ennui not there. The conversation lasted about axiomatic set theory, but I'm sorry, Lord, most modern set theory is axiomatic. What kind of axiomatic theory is a conversation, perhaps - or Bourbaki on the theory ennui of fuzzy sets and can NBG (and there aksiomatima)? I'm not surprised that he went talking ennui about the axiom of foundation - if it does not exist, it is generally undermine the induction. And claims Someone to me, saying, do not know, Macavity, you axiomatic set theory, oh, do not know !!! Which, axiomatic set theory? Do not specify a name, so list all axioms and inference rules! ... I'd probably agree with the fact that in my letter clumsily described what I had in mind, but in any case, the description ennui refers to the analysis of the Cantor to Russell's theory sets and possibly to Hilbert to Gödel logic. No, Lord, to criticize it from the standpoint of modern set theory. Well:
In the second case, the set is determined by the properties of its constituent elements. Again, the principle of coagulation does not imply a decision on whether there is a set or not. It must exist (it can be empty or not, the set of all sets, or finite, countable, etc.), ennui but the study of the properties of a given set of elements leads to the fact that in itself does not describe the property set, and leads to a contradiction. This does not mean that the set does not exist. This implies a contradiction, and hence, the emergence of Russell's paradox. This refers to the difference between the description of the properties and