Russel's Paradox typo

[HermesMarc]

OpenLogic/content/computability/computability-theory/russells-paradox.tex

Lines 15 to 20 in 82a3181

	\item Russell's paradox: let $S = \Setabs{x}{x \notin x}$. Then $x
	\in S$ if and only if $x \notin S$, a contradiction.
	\emph{Conclusion:} There is no such set~$S$. Assuming the existence of a
	``set of all sets'' is inconsistent with the other axioms of set
	theory.

I think this should say "then $S \in S$ if and only if $S \notin S$".

Also: Is the "the set of all sets" trying to refer to S? I would have expected S to be described as "the set of all sets that do not contain themself".

[rzach]

I fixed the typo; the other issue needs more thought. (Briefly: if "the set of all sets" existed, so would S by separation, but this can't easily be explained here. But the whole chapter needs work.)