3 ms·
That's Russell's paradox, which he knew all about, since it was bloody named after him. Godel would have said something more like this: "Sure, put me down for
by neilk 18y ago
That's Russell's paradox, which he knew all about, since it was bloody named after him.
Godel would have said something more like this: "Sure, put me down for 'fetish for systems of fetish knowledge which cannot prove the existence of this fetish.'"
Sorry to subject you to pedantry, but someone was wrong on the internet.
- smanek 18y agoI was thinking the same thing. One of my favorite set theory jokes is based on Russel's Paradox. A mathematician starts a proof: "Consider the set of all sets that have never been considered. Oh wait ... never mind"
- technoguyrob 18y agoBut that's perfectly valid. We have just considered that set, so obviously it's not an element of itself. I think maybe what you meant to say is after that: "Now consider an arbitrary element in this set." That would present a problem. Of course so would showing it's non-empty, but I think there could be a way around that.