Russell's paradox: Let R be the set of all sets that are not members of themselves. If R is not a member of itself, then its definition dictates that it must contain itself, and if it contains itself, then it contradicts its own definition as the set of all sets that are not members of themselves.
Thanks for this giveaway！
Comment has been collapsed.
do that paradox have an equation?
Comment has been collapsed.
I doubt it. I can't think of a way to represent it as an equation.
Comment has been collapsed.
This comment was deleted 4 years ago.
Comment has been collapsed.
Math abstraction always surprised me. And here i'm struggling with tensor analysis.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's not an equation though
Comment has been collapsed.
This comment was deleted 4 years ago.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thank you so much:))
Comment has been collapsed.
Thank You
Comment has been collapsed.
It's funny, the first time I heard Russell's paradox was in Runescape, namely that if an armour set contained all armour sets, did it contain itself
I also like Theseus' ship; If you replace any individual part of a ship, it is the same ship. So if you proceed and replace all of them, one by one, it is still the same ship. If you then take all the original parts and assemble them together, you have the original ship too.
Comment has been collapsed.
Never could get my head around this type of math. But enjoyed entering the above game. Bump
Comment has been collapsed.
I prefer the barber paradox example rather than the formal description:
The barber is the "one who shaves all those, and those only, who do not shave themselves." The question is, does the barber shave himself?
Comment has been collapsed.
Self-reference leads to all kinds of paradoxes.
I strongly recommend the great book Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid to anyone who is intrigued by such things.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thanks for the gift Rupti!
Comment has been collapsed.