Chris, (01)
My comment was based on the folklore, but that point
strengthens my claim that Russell hadn't discovered
anything new: (02)
CM> Cantor in fact already had a firm (if informal) grasp
> of the modern set/class distinction that prevented him
> from seeing any paradoxes in his set theory. (03)
JFS>> Zermelo noted Cantor's remarks and had already developed
>> the first version of his axioms to avoid the paradox before
>> he had heard anything from Russell. (04)
CM> That is not so. Zermelo's first axiomatization was in 1908
> and was expressly in response to Russell's paradox, among others. (05)
That was his first published version. I based my remark on the
following statement by Putnam: (06)
Zermelo even denied that his set-theoretic work depended on
Whitehead and Russell; he claimed to have been aware of the
"Russell paradox" on his own. (07)
That's from http://www.jfsowa.com/peirce/putnam.htm (08)
John (09)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (010)
|