Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - ask me no questions, I'll tell you no lies

Sion · 06-10-2004, 10:29 PM

everquestjoe: thanks.

Kostya: again, as I said, I know what it is you are saying (and you explained it very well, I might add) but this part of your question is a logical impossibility:

"sets which are not sets"

how can a set not be a set? a thing either is, or is not <some arbitrary descriptive>. if it is a set, then it can not NOT be a set.

what I was getting at is that your question was poorly worded. what you were trying to ask was this:

"Ok, consider the set of all sets which are not self-members, is this set a self-member? Or not???"

for example, let us take the set of all dogs. is it a self-member? no, because the defining characteristic is that the member objects are all dogs, not sets. so, the set of all sets which are not self-members includes any and all sets for which the defining characteristic of the member objects is something OTHER than being a set. so, can this set be a self-member? its defining characteristic necessitates that the member objects are sets which are NOT self-members. so a set which IS a self-member cannot be a part of a set of non-self-members. but as you said:

"If the answer is no, then it is not a self member and thus ought to be a member of the set of all sets which are not self members..."

or look at it from another perspective. let us look at what is a set. a set is a group of objects that all have at least one thing in common (ie they are all red, or they are all dogs, or whatever). now consider a group of things in which none of the member objects has anything in common with any other. that TOO is a set, because you can say that the one thing they have in common is that they have nothing in common. but then they no longer have nothing in common, now they have something in common. but we just defined these things as having nothing in common, then found something they have in common, which is having nothing in common. etc, etc, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

the link between your example and mine: in each case, its a logic loop that yields no final answer or solution, just keeps turning back on itself.

now, here is where I have to admit that I did not word my answer as well as I should have. I should have said "no, that question cannot be answered".

man, my brain hurts now. where's flyman with some herb when you need him?

06-10-2004, 10:29 PM	#217 (permalink)
Sion Dumb all over...a little ugly on the side Location: In the room where the giant fire puffer works, and the torture never stops.	everquestjoe: thanks. Kostya: again, as I said, I know what it is you are saying (and you explained it very well, I might add) but this part of your question is a logical impossibility: "sets which are not sets" how can a set not be a set? a thing either is, or is not <some arbitrary descriptive>. if it is a set, then it can not NOT be a set. what I was getting at is that your question was poorly worded. what you were trying to ask was this: "Ok, consider the set of all sets which are not self-members, is this set a self-member? Or not???" for example, let us take the set of all dogs. is it a self-member? no, because the defining characteristic is that the member objects are all dogs, not sets. so, the set of all sets which are not self-members includes any and all sets for which the defining characteristic of the member objects is something OTHER than being a set. so, can this set be a self-member? its defining characteristic necessitates that the member objects are sets which are NOT self-members. so a set which IS a self-member cannot be a part of a set of non-self-members. but as you said: "If the answer is no, then it is not a self member and thus ought to be a member of the set of all sets which are not self members..." or look at it from another perspective. let us look at what is a set. a set is a group of objects that all have at least one thing in common (ie they are all red, or they are all dogs, or whatever). now consider a group of things in which none of the member objects has anything in common with any other. that TOO is a set, because you can say that the one thing they have in common is that they have nothing in common. but then they no longer have nothing in common, now they have something in common. but we just defined these things as having nothing in common, then found something they have in common, which is having nothing in common. etc, etc, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. the link between your example and mine: in each case, its a logic loop that yields no final answer or solution, just keeps turning back on itself. now, here is where I have to admit that I did not word my answer as well as I should have. I should have said "no, that question cannot be answered". man, my brain hurts now. where's flyman with some herb when you need him? __________________ He's the best, of course, of all the worst. Some wrong been done, he done it first. -fz I jus' want ta thank you...falettinme...be mice elf...agin...