From Russell's paradox to

Russell’s way out of his paradox via the impredicative theory of types has roughly the same logical power as Zermelo set theory - which supplanted it as a far more flexible and workable axiomatic foundation for mathematics. We discuss some new formalisms that are conceptually close to Russell, yet simpler, and have the same logical power as higher set theory - as represented by the far more powerful Zermelo-Frankel set theory and beyond. END.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
Download options
PhilPapers Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 16,667
External links
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
James Levine (2001). On Russell's Vulnerability to Russell's Paradox. History and Philosophy of Logic 22 (4):207-231.
Kevin C. Klement, Russell-Myhill Paradox. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Kevin C. Klement, Russell's Paradox. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Nino Cocchiarella (2000). Russell's Paradox of the Totality of Propositions. Nordic Journal of Philosophical Logic 5 (1):25-37.

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

121 ( #22,324 of 1,726,249 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

102 ( #11,718 of 1,726,249 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

Start a new thread
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.