Philosophia Mathematica 21 (2):180-199 (2013)
Zermelo once wrote that he had anticipated Russell's contradiction of the set of all sets that are not members of themselves. Is this sufficient for having anticipated Russell's Paradox — the paradox that revealed the untenability of the logical notion of a set as an extension? This paper argues that it is not sufficient and offers criteria that are necessary and sufficient for having discovered Russell's Paradox. It is shown that there is ample evidence that Russell satisfied the criteria and that Zermelo did not
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
Citations of this work BETA
Frege's Cardinals Do Not Always Obey Hume's Principle.Gregory Landini - 2017 - History and Philosophy of Logic 38 (2):127-153.
The Collected Papers of Bertrand Russell, Volume 5: Toward Principia Mathematica, 1905–1908.Gregory Landini - 2015 - History and Philosophy of Logic 36 (2):162-178.
Similar books and articles
The Origins of Zermelo's Axiomatization of Set Theory.Gregory H. Moore - 1978 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 7 (1):307 - 329.
On Russell's Vulnerability to Russell's Paradox.James Levine - 2001 - History and Philosophy of Logic 22 (4):207-231.
The Iterative Conception of Set: A (Bi-)Modal Axiomatisation.J. P. Studd - 2012 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 42 (5):1-29.
Russell's Way Out of the Paradox of Propositions.André Fuhrmann - 2002 - History and Philosophy of Logic 23 (3):197-213.
Russell's Paradox of the Totality of Propositions.Nino Cocchiarella - 2000 - Nordic Journal of Philosophical Logic 5 (1):25-37.
Agamben, Badiou, and Russell.Paul M. Livingston - 2009 - Continental Philosophy Review 42 (3):297-325.
Added to index2012-11-14
Total downloads50 ( #105,016 of 2,172,696 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #117,216 of 2,172,696 )
How can I increase my downloads?