Re: A

vc wrote:
>>OK. but domains can be thought of as simply sets. So then the
>>"collection of all domains" is like the "set of all sets" which, by
>>Cantor's Paradox, isn't actually a well-defined set.
>
> In "naive" set theory, yes, in ZF, no. There is no problem with
> defining a "set of all domains" provided that the set satisfies ZF
> axioms.

So couldn't our "set of all domains" be a valid domain itself? And thus
a member of itself?

Paul.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A
    ... I can't see how Cantor's Paradox would apply in this case. ... specified finite set of domains". ... Paul. ... Prev by Date: ...
    (comp.databases.theory)
  • Re: spam
    ... AmericanSPAMMER.com Member ... Paul (We're too young to fall asleep) ... Prev by Date: ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: Paradox day 2006 is 20th March
    ... My Paradox isn't dead yet. ... Paul ... Prev by Date: ...
    (comp.databases.paradox)
  • Re: A
    ... Paul wrote: ... >> axioms. ... you can talk about D as being a member of some ... Prev by Date: ...
    (comp.databases.theory)
  • Re: MDX Max function
    ... With Member measures.as 'Max ... >From tSales ... Paul ... Prev by Date: ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.olap)