Thread: Math question... Soysoldiers not allowed.

Originally Posted by Kanati8869

The answer I came to after my brain went into vapor-lock is basically what Quick came to as well.

It's a "trick" question because it's recursive. Or to be more specific. It's Russell's Paradox and is based on "naive set thoery".

Correct any of this if I'm fuckin it up, Soy...

According to naive set theory, any definable collection is a set. Let R be the set of all sets that are not members of themselves. If R qualifies as a member of itself, it would contradict its own definition as a set containing all sets that are not members of themselves. On the other hand, if such a set is not a member of itself, it would qualify as a member of itself by the same definition. This contradiction is Russell's paradox. Symbolically:



All I know is that it made me get a headache thinking about it for about 10 minutes before coming to the conclusion that mathematicians all suck.

Wow, Ass. This is why Zemelo-Frankel Set theory was developed. Russel's Paradox is eliminated by the axiom of schema of definition in ZFC which is what most mathematicians use. And any definable collection is a class in philosophy. The important thing is that sets and classes are distinguiable since classes can have very loose definitions, where as the set definition above is not allowed, R cannot be in itself.

-H

Originally Posted by hannibal

Wow, Ass. This is why Zemelo-Frankel Set theory was developed. Russel's Paradox is eliminated by the axiom of schema of definition in ZFC which is what most mathematicians use. And any definable collection is a class in philosophy. The important thing is that sets and classes are distinguiable since classes can have very loose definitions, where as the set definition above is not allowed, R cannot be in itself.

-H

I don't understand a damn thing you just said.

Originally Posted by hannibal

Wow, Ass. This is why Zemelo-Frankel Set theory was developed. Russel's Paradox is eliminated by the axiom of schema of definition in ZFC which is what most mathematicians use. And any definable collection is a class in philosophy. The important thing is that sets and classes are distinguiable since classes can have very loose definitions, where as the set definition above is not allowed, R cannot be in itself.

-H

That's what I said.

Originally Posted by SoySoldier

What we need is for someone to come in to this thread and tirelessly argue why 60% is correct despite evidence.

Any religious conservatives in the house?

/duck

Originally Posted by SoySoldier

What we need is for someone to come in to this thread and tirelessly argue why 60% is correct despite evidence.

It is just as right as any of the other answers.


Sent from my UrMoms using Tapatalk

#winning