|
 |
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.
I don't know whether this specific paradox is used in Gödel's
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:
> I don't know whether this specific paradox is used in Gödel's
> incompleteness theorems, but that's essentially the gist of the joke.
I think Gödel would be more along the lines of "nobody has ever made
porn out of Rule 34."
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
