Sundray@lemmus.org to Comic Strips@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 month agoMath Master! [Bob the Angry Flower]lemmus.orgimagemessage-square30linkfedilinkarrow-up11arrow-down10file-text
arrow-up11arrow-down1imageMath Master! [Bob the Angry Flower]lemmus.orgSundray@lemmus.org to Comic Strips@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 month agomessage-square30linkfedilinkfile-text
minus-squareReginaPhalange@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·1 month agoI thought that all self referencing proofs are trouble since Russell’s paradox
minus-squareKogasa@programming.devlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·1 month agoThat is true. Naturals are explicitly constructible by definition anyway, but Russell’s paradox applies to the concept of “interesting numbers” and is why they can’t be well-defined. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interesting_number_paradox
I thought that all self referencing proofs are trouble since Russell’s paradox
That is true. Naturals are explicitly constructible by definition anyway, but Russell’s paradox applies to the concept of “interesting numbers” and is why they can’t be well-defined. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interesting_number_paradox