How can math be real if Russell's paradox is real?

what the fuck is up with this image

it doesn't look real

it's called camera flash

camera flash during daytime

But why the fuck is the room so clean

where's all the furniture

why is the dad asleep

why are the kids watching a porno with their dad asleep

i don't understand

Solution: a new axiom: there is no set which contains itself.

Dude, you'd watch porno when your dad is awake and right there? Sick man...

A better solution is just to assume the axioms of ZFC.

Kek. One time, when I was like 13 or some shit, my dad was on the couch watching TV and I was sitting nearby on a laptop watching porn, thinking I was being sneaky.

I came. My dad probably noticed, but I will never know.

Math isn't real you idiot.

You cum no hands or what?

You can also tell he cucked the fuck out of T.S. Eliot.

I was under a blanket, meng. :o)

Damn, I never perfected the technique of jerkin it under a blanket without jiggling it.

Funnily enough, when my dad was reading my a bedtime story as a kid once, I decided to start jerking it very obviously and my dad asked "what are you doing under there?" and I stopped immediately and said "nothing" and then he finished the story. Must have been a pretty wtf moment for him.

>S is the set whose elements are all possible sets.
>x in T is a set, but a set of elements that aren't sets
>ie T=set of all sets that have elements that aren't sets
If T belongs to T how does it follow it doesn't belong to T?

The contradiction is assuming S or T are sets, clearly.

S is not a set. It is impossible to construct in ZFC.

because the elements of the ill-defined T don't contain themselves

how can a set contain itself? can a box have itself inside itself? of course not. what a stupid paradox.

Why can't we use NBG set theory and say "the class of all classes"? Serious question

...

Is there another set apart from this that doesn't exist in ZFC???

A class is defined to contain sets.

It's like going to the supermarket and searching for a toothpaste tube full of mustard (or more to the point, a toothpaste tube full of mustard tubes)

That's an ill-posed question, in as far as ZFC determines what "set" means in the first place and so the syntactic expression "{x | x not in x}" doesn't have a semantical counterpart, i.e. this doesn't define a set.
So when you say
>Is there another set apart from this
the answer is that it isn't a set.

Now there is a way to reframe your question: You can take another set theory where such a thing is a set and observe you can't map it (together with the rest of the sets into the theory) isomorphically into ZFC theory.
From this standpoint: Yes, there are an infinitude of sets (as defined by other set theories) that don't fiti into the ZFC framework.
E.g. you may consider set theories that reject well-foundedness
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-well-founded_set_theory
where e.g. the singleton set that contains itself (x := {x}) makes sense.

This isn't a problem, that just proves that T doesn't exists.

> Let S be a real such as x > 0 and x < 0.
> omg how can math exists ?

You throw out the assumptions that cause said paradox. Done.

Gödel's discoveries don't really have much to do with Russel's paradox, though. They just statet that you can't show the logical consistency of systems like ZFC within themselves.

WHY THE FUCK IS THE IMAGE NAMED CHRIS MAGGIO?? THATS THE NAME OF ONE OF MY PROFESSORS BEFORE I MOVED, WHAT IN THE LITERAL FUCK WHOSE IMAGE IS THAT??

>naive set theory

OP BTFO!

D-does the guy sleeping look like the professor?

YES

No, your example is precisely the empty set, a set which exists.
T, however, is obviously non-empty since every standard example of a set is in T.
Retard

it was the 90s, people didnt have shit all over their fucking room for no reason.

Mythmatics is nothing but wishful thinking at this point. The number of paradoxes and incoherent definitions are astounding. The only people who study it are excessively servile. They simply can't question what they are told. Useful, but uninspiring people.

If this is "all in our mind (spirit, soul)," then no paradoxes exist. Matrix, presentation, whatever

I'm not stupid enough to say either way with certainty: However, it "seems to me," based on the given data I "seem to remember learning," this is likely the case.

Stuck in a top-level shared dream with a bunch of fake, shallow, shiny, plastic, inadequate, insecure psychopaths. Damn.

Paradox doesn't real.
Paradox are literally just linguistic games played by people who think they are smart but don't realize that language is made up concept by different people simultaneously so susceptible to flaws that are known as paradox.

Is it possible to have a mathematical theory with a universal set (or class etc.) that is practical and connects to modern mathematical thinking?

Reality is one, so naturally we should have some mathematical structure to model it. (Anyone who is familiar with the CTMU will recognize this line of thought.) There is New Foundations (and NFU) but it is not so good for doing category theory. What is the solution bros?

a hierarchy of type universes

That's exactly not what I'm looking for though. The infinite sequence of universes are all a part of reality themselves, but where is the structure that models reality as a whole? It has to contain everything.

Considering the TV is on a chair, they probably just moved in (or are moving out)

Dad's been doing most of the work so he's resting, Mom put something on for the kids to distract the kids cause they're bored (it looks more like an old movie than a porno)

pretty sure that's a table

How does that make sense, it says that 'this is a set whose elements are all possible sets' however in the definition of T is states that x isn't a set of its self, therefore T isn't a set whose elements are all possible sets. :s

>Kek. One time, when I was like 13 or some shit, my dad was on the couch watching TV and I was sitting nearby on a laptop watching porn, thinking I was being sneaky.
Lel me too. I was watching tv under a blanket with my mum in the same room and I fapped until I came.

i know this isnt /tv/, but how is it no one knows basic instinct ?

It's Basic Instinct you twat.

>HOW COULD YOU POSSIBLY NOT KNOW ABOUT , GOY?????????

Why tho?
He was a leftist cuck and a pseudo intellectual, a literal example of someone who was probably pretty intelligent and got famous but never really contributed anything really outstanding.

Famous for "this statement is false lol xDDD" set theory edition and "at this moment I am euphoric. not because of some phony god's blessing but because of my own enlightenment"

the plural of paradox is "paradoxes";

Actually it's paradoxen

/pol/ please, stop pretending to know what you're talking about

You have to go back

...