3 ms·
This is the classical "who shaves the barber" paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barber_paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barber_paradox), which Russell u
by Jun8 16y ago
This is the classical "who shaves the barber" paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barber_paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barber_paradox), which Russell used to show that the approach to set theory at his time can be shown to contradict itself. Then came Godel et al. For a good intorduction to these topics I suggest Godel, Escher, Bach or Labyrinths.
- ggchappell 16y ago> This is the classical "who shaves the barber" paradox I don't think it is. Simply because a set contains things that cannot be represented by a symbol, does not mean that the set itself cannot be represented by a symbol. And since it can, the set is not a member of itself. No paradoxes. Also, I propose to you all that everything can be represented by a symbol. Thus, the set in question is the empty set. And here is the requested symbol: ∅