Talk:Cantor's paradox

Need more context

I've given this article a general cleanup, but I think it could use a little more:

The formal statement of Cantor's paradox isn't so great.
Some context explaining why Cantor's paradox is significant would be very useful here.

If we can fix those two things then I think the {{attention}} tag can be taken away. Tim Pierce 06:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a major revision on the page and I think I've addressed your concerns, so I'm excising the {{attention}} tag. Ryan Reich 17:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NBG set theory

"The fact that NBG set theory resolves the paradox is therefore a point in its favor as a suitable replacement."

What is NBG set theory? This should either be a link, or it should be removed. Surely axiomatic set theory is the standard 'replacement' for naive set theory anyway. InformationSpace 00:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Von Neumann–Bernays–Gödel set theory, but, as well-known, ZFC also solves the paradox in the same manner, and you can deal with classes in ZFC (but not as objects of the theory). The sentence has to be removed. 81.57.95.102 12:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]