Talk:Russell's paradox

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Russell's paradox article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 90 days

Philosophy: Logic / Contemporary High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic
	Contemporary philosophy

Mathematics

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's priority scale.

"The set of all sets that do not contain themselves" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The set of all sets that do not contain themselves. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. NineFiveSeven 18:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can (sequence A053169 in the OEIS) be called “Russell numbers”?

Its definition is like the like the set R in the article: i.e. x belongs to R if and only if x does not belong to x (however, determine whether a positive integer x is a Russell number may be very difficult, the smallest unknown x is 319) 2402:7500:917:8A69:2C6E:A04F:8752:A7E0 (talk) 05:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Axiom of extensionality

The "Formal presentation" section begin with a description of the Axiom of extensionality. However I don't see how this axiom is relevant nor that it is used anywhere in the rest of the section, which just uses Comprehension, Existential instantiation and Universal instantiation. Extentionality is also not mentioned in the source cited. Should the reference to extentionality be deleted? CodeTalker (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]