Basically, because a lot of mathematical proofs involve phrases like "Let X be the set of all things with property Y", and contain a tacit assumption that the "set of all things with property Y" is in fact a legitimate set that obeys the standard rules of set theory (which the proofs then go on to invoke).
If you start with "let X be the set containing all sets that do not contain themselves", and accept that such a set exists, you can prove anything, and while that particular phrasing might make the pitfall obvious, it's not as obvious what other rules might lead to paradox.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-09-18 07:58 am (UTC)If you start with "let X be the set containing all sets that do not contain themselves", and accept that such a set exists, you can prove anything, and while that particular phrasing might make the pitfall obvious, it's not as obvious what other rules might lead to paradox.