User talk:Mineralogy

Welcome
Welcome to Wikipedia, the greatest encyclopedia on Earth! You seem to be off to a good start. Hopefully you will soon join the vast army of Wikipediholics! You may wish to review the welcome page, tutorial, and stylebook, as well as the avoiding common mistakes and Wikipedia is not pages. You may also want to check out Merge, for information about merging, renaming and moving pages. The Wikipedia directory is also quite useful. In addition, you might want to add yourself to the new user log; if you made any edits before getting an account, you may wish to assign those to your username.

By the way, an important tip: To sign comments on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. This will automatically add your name and the time after your comments.

Finally, here are some open tasks:

Other links for reference: Wikiquette, image copyright tags, Merge Hope to see you around the Wiki! Remember to be Bold! with your edits, and if you have any questions whatsoever, feel free to contact me on my talk page! Hi, I see you started editing a few months ago, but took a break. I thought I would welcome you and give you some helpful links. &infin; Who ? &iquest; ? 03:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

naive set theory
Cantor never formalized his set theory, but there is pretty good evidence that his system was not vulnerable to the paradoxes. Frege explicitly formalized a system equivalent to naive set theory, and it is exactly his system for which Russell developed his paradox. Randall Holmes 02:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I will take a look at the naive set theory article (eventually). Randall Holmes 22:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Min, just happened to stumble across your remarks to Randall. Actually I was the one who reverted you, not Randall. Right, Cantor was the creator of set theory, but the point is that the paradoxes weren't necessarily Cantor's fault; they may have been the fault of Frege's misinterpretation of Cantor. You're right about the conflict with the naive set theory article, which is in pretty bad shape; see Talk:Naive set theory there for my plan to fix things (it involves fixes in at least four articles, so I haven't gotten to it yet). --Trovatore 05:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)