So now, the question becomes, is Russell's paradox solvable?
   Before we attempt to answer this question let's first examine paradoxes which are considered to be similar to Russell's paradox (and one that is not).

The Liar's Paradox

   Whenever a word or an idea refers to itself in a sentence, a paradox can be formed. In this situation, a paradox can usually be solved by manipulating the sets, by changing the properties of the sets, by changing the semantics, or, in some cases by including the element of time, and there are probably other methods for solving paradoxes. The following paradox is one of those that is created by referring to itself in a sentence. It is known as a 'Self Referential Paradox.'   Consider what is known as the 'Liar's Paradox.'
   This paradox results from the assertion, 'This statement is false.' If the statement is true, then it is false, but if the statement is false, then it is true. A paradox has been created, and the paradox arises because the statement is referring to itself.
   There is usually more than one way to solve a paradox, but usually the best way to get to the crux of the paradox quickly is to ask, 'how does this paradox relate to Tspace? How does reality view the contradiction?'
  So, with this in mind, the illogical construct and the self-referencing in the liar's paradox comes from the definition and the use of the word 'this.' If someone were to say nine plus eight is sixteen, then you could say 'this statement is false.' And that would be correct and not a paradox. The word 'this' is referring to something in close proximity, but it is understood that 'this' is not referring to the subject of the same sentence, which in this case is 'statement.' It might be easier to understand if someone said, 'That statement is false,' meaning a statement further away, perhaps on the blackboard. Using the word 'this' in a sentence has an unspoken, logical rule that 'this' is referring to a subject in a close proximity.

- 14 -