Apparently this reminder is needed.

It is a meme.

  • steventhedev@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    If the set of definitions contains the word set, does the English language implode in a recursive cascade of paradoxes?

    • bort@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      11 months ago

      A set can totally contain itself. A better question would be: Consider a set, that contains all sets, that do not contain themself. Would that set contain itself?

      • lugal
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        11 months ago

        It would. Source: I just shaved my beard

      • hglman@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        Yes, just relax the axiom of comprehension, allow U ∈ U and move on with proving things for fun and profit. No one said that you have to pick axioms that seem natural or intuitive.

    • phorq@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      Español
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Define “the” without using the word “the”… Take that logic! Set and match!

      • lugal
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        A common English definite article