Given ϵ and =, there are two possibilities: ϵ and = are the same, explored in previous post, or, the standard case:
ϵ is not the same as =.
In this case, xϵx is impossible because x=x.
Then Russels Paradox, (xϵx) iff (xϵ’x), doesn’t exist because there is no x st (xϵx).
Think of it like this: A Proposed Paradox (x<x) iff (x<’x) is impossible because (x<x) doesn’t exist for all x because < and = are different (mutually exclusive) and x=x.
I put this result in a separate thread because of its fundamental implication for Axiomatic Set Theory. (It didn't occurr to me when I started this thread)