Shaniqua

5 ms·

1.
by Shaniqua 11y ago
It reads like Chekhov's short stories: kind of dreamy and full of epiphanies.
2.
by Shaniqua 11y ago
>’” The more savvy folks around them think, that’s good, because this isn’t a ‘game’ you can ‘play.’ " Politics strikes me as something very atavistic. I avoid people who play politics at all costs - I simply can't imagine anyt
3.
by Shaniqua 11y ago
You can fix the Russel's Paradox in ZF as well.
4.
by Shaniqua 11y ago
You can call U anything you want. It's by axiom schema of specification: for any set A, there some set B with a set C in B iff C in A.
5.
by Shaniqua 11y ago
By the way, I forgot to ask do you object to my post about "killing" the Russel set because you don't accept the existence of universal set or because you don't understand how {x in S| x not x} helps here? If it's t
6.
by Shaniqua 11y ago
Well, it's not that difficult to fix it in ZF. If you define S to be S = {x in U: x not in x}, then it simply means S is not in U.
7.
by Shaniqua 11y ago
It's no big deal if you don't admit universal set or anything other than ZFC.
8.
by Shaniqua 11y ago
But Russel's Paradox is easy to fix. Let x be a set. Then, V = {x| x not in x} is the set that causes Russel's Paradox. We can easily define a new set S = {x| p(x) and x in U} where p(x) is some property and U is the universal set
9.
by Shaniqua 11y ago
I am new to programming. So far I dabbled a bit in Scheme, Python, Smalltalk(Pharo). I quickly realized I don't care for Python, but Scheme is an awesome language(it's like doing Abstract Algebra a bit) and Smalltalk is an unbelie