On 5/8/2012 1:52 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> And I think the answer is "Russell's paradox".

That answer is also correct.  I'm being overly pedantic in my answers 
but here's my reasoning:

----

1) Does the set of all sets that do not contain their own complement
contain itself?

There is no such set, and thus the statement is vacuously true.

2) Now tell me, is the set of all sets that list themselves listed in 
itself?

There are no sets which contain themselves, thus the set of all these 
sets it in fact the empty set.  The empty set does not contain itself, 
so the answer is "no".

----

Of course both of these answers are assuming modern "post Russel's 
paradox" set theory, but I think they work.


> Interestingly, in Portal 2 GLaDDOS poses nearly the exact same question
> to Wheatly, who also responds with "false".

Maybe an in-joke by some math-savvy writers? Assuming my reasoning is 
correct that is.

Post a reply to this message