Shaniqua

It reads like Chekhov's short stories: kind of dreamy and full of epiphanies.

>’” The more savvy folks around them think, that’s good, because this isn’t a ‘game’ you can ‘play.’ "

Politics strikes me as something very atavistic. I avoid people who play politics at all costs - I simply can't imagine anything good coming from them.

You can fix the Russel's Paradox in ZF as well.

You can call U anything you want. It's by axiom schema of specification: for any set A, there some set B with a set C in B iff C in A.

By the way, I forgot to ask do you object to my post about "killing" the Russel set because you don't accept the existence of universal set or because you don't understand how {x in S| x not x} helps here? If it's the former, can you assume that U exists and explain how {x in S| x not x} solves the problem? So that I know you're not simply "saying things".

Well, it's not that difficult to fix it in ZF.

If you define S to be S = {x in U: x not in x}, then it simply means S is not in U.

It's no big deal if you don't admit universal set or anything other than ZFC.

But Russel's Paradox is easy to fix.

Let x be a set. Then, V = {x| x not in x} is the set that causes Russel's Paradox. We can easily define a new set S = {x| p(x) and x in U} where p(x) is some property and U is the universal set. Then S easily fixes the contradiction.

I am new to programming. So far I dabbled a bit in Scheme, Python, Smalltalk(Pharo). I quickly realized I don't care for Python, but Scheme is an awesome language(it's like doing Abstract Algebra a bit) and Smalltalk is an unbelievable environment. Now Forth also piqued my interest. How is it different from, say, Pharo? Apparently, one of Forth's selling points is related to "philosophy of problem solving". In that regard, how does Forth compare to Scheme? For example, it's trivial to solve certain problems by recursion in Scheme. Thanks.