The empty set is the set with nothing, i e. no thing. So it doesn't need 1.

;)

>> The empty set is the set with nothing

So it is A set. In fact it's "the set" that makes it a rather special one.

Wouldn’t the set without nothing be more fundamental?

Brilliant. Go to the top of the class, er, set. Oops, forgot, sets have no order. List, then.

Ordered list, I mean.

Does the set of sets that exclude themselves exclude itself?

No, because it isn't a set, but rather a class.

A concept created at least partially to resolve this paradox.

That's a well-known old paradox, or close. Good on you, cobber. (AU slang :)

See Russells's paradox:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_paradox

You start from 1 empty set though.

If you could start from 0 empty sets, you'd have a point.

If I start from 0 empty sets, how do I have A point?

>You start from 1 empty set though.

Sez who, zigactly? If you are coldtea, I am coldertea. As in, I love my tea colder than you do yours. And starts who? Not me.

Don't kid around, dude. I dik around.

>If you could start from 0 empty sets, you'd have a point.

What if the set of empty sets has no element? :)

>Was the first comment under the influence of drugs?

No, it was not. Regarding this whole subthread in which I participated, I did it for some mutual logic-chopping fun.

But if you thought there was a chance it was, you shouldn't have replied to the second comment, because I would have been equally under the influence of the drugs for the second, if I had been so for the first comment. (Don't reply to a druggie.) After all, they were both done in one atomic comment transaction.