It cannot be overstated how flawed your own statements here are. You shouldn't be talking about logical error regarding a work of logic when you don't even know

It cannot be overstated how flawed your own statements here are. You shouldn't be talking about logical error regarding a work of logic when you don't even know enough logic to know what a logical error is. And there was no "flaw" in attempting to resolve foundational paradoxes in set theory, primarily to address Frege's error and deal with Russell's paradox, or in attempting to prove that all mathematics can be derived from pure logic. Seeking to demonstrate a hypothesis that is later shown to be erroneous is not "flawed", else the entire knowledge-seeking enterprise is "flawed". And switching from "logical error" to the very vague notion of a "flaw" is goalpost moving that looks a lot like bad faith. I won't comment further.