Why is R(X) = not(X(X)) only for R =/= X? In Russell’s version, X should vary over all predicates/sets, meaning when instance X with R, we get
R(R) = ¬R(R)
as per the paradox.
Not sure what your objection is. I introduced the notion of “incompletely defined predicate” to do away with Russell’s version of the predicate.
Why is R(X) = not(X(X)) only for R =/= X? In Russell’s version, X should vary over all predicates/sets, meaning when instance X with R, we get
R(R) = ¬R(R)
as per the paradox.
Not sure what your objection is. I introduced the notion of “incompletely defined predicate” to do away with Russell’s version of the predicate.