Implementation of mathematics in set theory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implementation_of_mathematics_in_set_theory

In terms of set theory

Like all supes, set theory also had a point of origin, but in its case, it was a rather unremarkable event.

EXTERIOR. NIGHT.

The void. It was time before time, the world was flat (!) devoid of form and land. The shapreless void near and everything incencere, and pretty much undistinguishable from anything else, if else was even a thing. It was, oh, so quiet. It was, oh, so still. We were alone and peaceful until... THE SKY UP ABOVE...! ZING! BOOM! ...IS CAVING IN! WOW! BAM! Gee, this is set, you almost have a fit. The sets are, George, this is it! You blow a fuse, ZING BOOM The devil cuts loose, ZING BOOM So what's the use, WOW BAM! There's no mistake, an element got picked. Not. Because this was the empty set. It was pretty vacant and vacuously true! The premordial container, was! Later, it was retold as a spectacular, Micheal Bay level, mega-production. With sharks viciously circling around the empty set. (...) We passed upon this set, it was big and fat and deeply concerned with containing itself. I laughed, he shook his head, I spoke into his eyes: "You think you contain yourself?". I gazed a gazeless stare, which came as another surprise because I knew I couldn't simultaneously contain and not contain me. (...) In fact, just the empty set, as it turns out, is completely sufficient! That is, no other set need exists for us to start developing the new mathematical theory of sets! And it's fun for a while, but admittingly, each new construction isn't completely satisfactory. Most authors launch into a anti-campaign against the low-level details, condemning them to oblivion as soon as we have abstracted out new mathematical object. These authors then assure us that this newly created object is know a math object in its own right and so it should be treated accordinly, which means henceforth we should never debase ourselves by analyzing its atomical parts. We have comprehended it, therefore we must forget the details, as the principle of abstraction demands.

A few number sets can be constructed quite satisfactory in terms of sets alone. However, with more complex constructions, along with the constant pressure to avoid Russell's demons, the axioms become more comlex and not so very obvious. The whole shebang turnsinto running away from Russell while laying down the paradox-free foundation for mathematics. You then level-up, having now the task to construct the Real number set, at which point (╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻

It is said that a 2008 issue of the AMS report, contained this quote:

"…to expand the definition of the number 1, fully in terms of Bourbaki primitives, requires over 4 trillion symbols".

I laughed and shook his hand, and made my way back home. I searched for form and land, for years and years I roamed. I gazed a gazeless stare.