>I think it's a clear example of something that can't be described by standard set theory. It absolutely can be described by naive set theory. You literally ju

>I think it's a clear example of something that can't be described by standard set theory. It absolutely can be described by naive set theory. You literally just did it. It also is not a mathematical object in ZFC, there is no way to construct it. >I'm not trying to open up a discussion on what statements are true in every possible version of set theory, or the implication in other branches of math. But that is the only way the statement could ever be false. In standard mathematics, founded on ZFC, every object is a set. So the only way the statement could ever be false is if you look at different foundations and broader theories.