Talk:Russell's paradox
How did this sentence contain list so many times but still make sense
[change source]It’s confusing 104.249.73.2 (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- I thought this was referring to sets? I assume they are using list for set, which I would argue is an invalid substitute, as lists are usually ordered, and sets are not. – Angerxiety! 16:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. I think the person who wrote this thought they should use list instead of set, because list is on WP:BASIC, and set is not. But it's not really clear that way. Batrachoseps (talk) 17:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- I have rewritten it; and no, it's not about list vs. set. Set is a methematical term, with a specific meaning. Eptalon (talk) 17:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- Russell "talked about" sets that contain themselves? I thought the paradox was that is not possible to have the "set of all sets that don't contain themselves"? Now this isn't mentioned, so it's not clear what the paradox is. Batrachoseps (talk) 17:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- Let R be the set of all sets that are not members of themselves. (This set is sometimes called "the Russell set".) If R is not a member of itself, then its definition entails that it is a member of itself; yet, if it is a member of itself, then it is not a member of itself, since it is the set of all sets that are not members of themselves. - From EnWP. Eptalon (talk) 17:27, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- That's what I thought, but you took that part out (so it's not explained in the article). The example of the barber seems a bit different. Maybe they can both be included? Batrachoseps (talk) 17:32, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- I thoght it was similar, and perhaps easier to understand. if you have a better way of phtasing, go ahead... Eptalon (talk) 17:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- Russell's paradox is from 1901/1903, Russell wrote the Brner Paradox himself, but it was in 1918... see en:Barber paradox Eptalon (talk) 17:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- I thoght it was similar, and perhaps easier to understand. if you have a better way of phtasing, go ahead... Eptalon (talk) 17:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- That's what I thought, but you took that part out (so it's not explained in the article). The example of the barber seems a bit different. Maybe they can both be included? Batrachoseps (talk) 17:32, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- Let R be the set of all sets that are not members of themselves. (This set is sometimes called "the Russell set".) If R is not a member of itself, then its definition entails that it is a member of itself; yet, if it is a member of itself, then it is not a member of itself, since it is the set of all sets that are not members of themselves. - From EnWP. Eptalon (talk) 17:27, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- Russell "talked about" sets that contain themselves? I thought the paradox was that is not possible to have the "set of all sets that don't contain themselves"? Now this isn't mentioned, so it's not clear what the paradox is. Batrachoseps (talk) 17:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- I have rewritten it; and no, it's not about list vs. set. Set is a methematical term, with a specific meaning. Eptalon (talk) 17:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. I think the person who wrote this thought they should use list instead of set, because list is on WP:BASIC, and set is not. But it's not really clear that way. Batrachoseps (talk) 17:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)