Strange/Useless powers.
- Thread starter Jess887cp
- Start date
-
The FTB Forum is now read-only, and is here as an archive. To participate in our community discussions, please join our Discord! https://ftb.team/discord
Silence! Do not give us away.
1. Nothing in there says that the person cannot also shave others. It's not "only those that don't shave themselves".
2. Female?
You know what I mean
The barber paradoxThe power to bring a thread further and further off topic once it has been derailed just a little bit
I have that power. And yes, I do know about the barber pair of docks. I also know the resolutions to it.
The whole realization that you could describe things that were not sets, and the whole need to verify that what looked like a set was a set was big news to mathematicians / logicians, as well as the general "don't define a set by negative parameters". Basically, unless you know the whole universe of objects, a "what's not in" is not well defined.
Modern set theory and axioms are ... confusing, at best. I have read the sections on Wikipedia several times, and I still don't get it. But I also know that it's only one of several equivalent systems, and not all of them require an infinite set of axioms to define sets.
Finite universes are trivial. But those can't describe math. It's the whole Godel issue.
The whole realization that you could describe things that were not sets, and the whole need to verify that what looked like a set was a set was big news to mathematicians / logicians, as well as the general "don't define a set by negative parameters". Basically, unless you know the whole universe of objects, a "what's not in" is not well defined.
Modern set theory and axioms are ... confusing, at best. I have read the sections on Wikipedia several times, and I still don't get it. But I also know that it's only one of several equivalent systems, and not all of them require an infinite set of axioms to define sets.
Finite universes are trivial. But those can't describe math. It's the whole Godel issue.
Well in a finite universe N doesn't exist. In the ZFC system its existance is guaranteed by the axoim of infinity. But then again basically every theory using N is either incomplete (i.e. there exists a statement A where you can't prove that A is true nor that it is false) or contradictory, courtesy of Gödel. As a result, we can't prove that our system of axioms is contradiction-free using only the axioms themselves, which kinda makes sense.
I thought this was a demonstration of further derailing a thread that was slightly the railed to begin with.