FOM: As to a "naivete" of G.Cantor's set theory

[Alexander Zenkin]

Dear Colleagues,

can anyone to formulate explicite arguments why modern meta-mathematics
calls  the G.Cantor's set theory by a "naive" theory? What does that
"naivete" consist in? And what does the "non-naivete" of the modern
meta-mathematics consist in?

Thanks in advance,

Alexander Zenkin

############################################
Prof. Alexander A. Zenkin,
Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences,
Leading Research Scientist of the Computer Center
of the Russian Academy of Sciences
e-mail: alexzen at com2com.ru
WEB-Site   http://www.com2com.ru/alexzen
############################################