On 3/19/07, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 12:20:20PM -0400, Andrii (lOkadin) Zvorygin wrote:
> The Russell's paradox has been around a long time. I really wonder
> why no one has noticed that "barber shop" example is a false
> analogy to the Universal Set. I won't get into the barbershop
> example as it would only distract from the logic but I do have a
> full thread
There are at least 3 problems here:
1. This is utterly off topic; translate it into Lojban and I'd be
more interested. Using "da" does not make it interesting.
I will definatly translate it in a short while. :D
2. You're using special magical characters that aren't in my UTF-8
font; since I've put a lot of effort into my UTF-8 setup, I can only
assume that most people reading this get horrible mangling. Just
use ASCII replacements for the notation like everybody else.
I believe Firefox has different codecs available for viewing that are relatively easy to change. View - > Character Encoding -> UTF-8
3. You've missed the point entirely. The *point* of Russell's
paradox was to show a problem with *19th century* set theory. The
fact that you, a student of modern set theory, can resolve it or
show it not be a paradox simply means that Russell succeeded at
fixing the problems he saw.
Russell 's Paradox is a problem. That is why it is called a Paradox. I have solved the Paradox. Now there is no problem. Russell created a problem.
Modern set theory Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory acknowledges Russell's Paradox and works around it by restricting the amount of proofs that are true.
-Robin
--
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"
Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org
for help.