I was rushing when I wrote this:

"Firstly, I don't think it is correct to say that GIT contradicts set theory. There are however, paradoxes as a result of AC (axiom of choice) that do contradict ZFC set theory (versus ZF) - Russell's theory of types was an attempt to reconcile these contradictions."

I should have said:

"Firstly, I don't think it is correct to say that GIT contradicts set theory. There are however, apparent paradoxes as a result of AC (axiom of choice). Russell's theory of types was also introduced to avoid a separate paradox that occurs with the set of the largest possible set."

Reading over the first paragraph I see that I confused the theory of types with AC 'paradoxes'. I'm not sure of the relationship between Russell's theory of types and the axiom of choice. Maybe Russell's paradox does not need the AC to still occur - like I said, I am not sure about it. Does anybody know?

Warm regards, Harv