Monday's XKCD was a failure.

But today's made me LOL. For real!

http://www.xkcd.com/468/

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Monday's XKCD was a failure.
> 
> But today's made me LOL. For real!
> 
> http://www.xkcd.com/468/
> 

I got monday's unfortunately ... today's I didn't get ...

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:

> I got monday's unfortunately ...

Hahahaha! ;-)

> today's I didn't get ...

It's a mathematical paradox:

Suppose that we define a set called FOO which contains every set that is 
not a member of itself.

Now, does FOO contain FOO?

If yes, that FOO is a set that contains itself, so it shouldn't be a 
member of FOO.

If no, that FOO does *not* contain itself, and hence it *should* be a 
member of FOO.

Paradox.


incompleteness theorems, but that's essentially the gist of the joke.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:

> incompleteness theorems, but that's essentially the gist of the joke.


porn out of Rule 34."

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message