Paradox
-
EricDV wrote:
would so easily brush this aside
Partly I'm being flippant. Partly not.
EricDV wrote:
Bertrand Russell was a pretty bright guy.
Yes, but it's an artificial problem that enforces a paradox because of its constraints. The paradox is easily avoided if you create a new class that is the union of X and N (from the website). And that's partly what programming and problem solving is all about--resolving constraints so you can get out of the paradox. IMO, Russell's paradox falls into the category of philosophical issues, something you see high school students entertaining themselves with, before they get girlfriends and a real life. So, am I being flippant or not? Marc Pensieve Some people believe what the bible says. Literally. At least [with Wikipedia] you have the chance to correct the wiki -- Jörgen Sigvardsson
Marc Clifton wrote:
philosophical issues, something you see high school students entertaining themselves with, before they get girlfriends and a real life.
I'm no longer in high school. And when I was, I wasn't thinking about stuff like this. Apparently you think philosophy is immature. I disagree.
Marc Clifton wrote:
So, am I being flippant or not?
I think so. But, it wouldn't be as much fun if we all enjoyed the same things. So go ahead. Somone said: We don't stop having fun when we're old; we're old when we stop having fun. ---------- Some problems are so complex that you have to be highly intelligent and well informed just to be undecided about them. - Laurence J. Peters
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
I'm working on that article, it's just going sloooow.
It must be catching. I'm having the same problem. I launched an internal website a few days ago and the clients keep wanting me to change certain things. * We want all users to be able to access X. ... * Oops no we don't. We only want these users to access X. ... * Well, now all the users who cannot access X want to know if they can get a Y to access. ... Loopus Infinitus :sigh:
If we all used the Plain English compiler every post in the lounge would be a programming question.:cool:
Welcome to CP in your language. Post the unicode version in My CP Blog [ ^ ] now.People who don't understand how awesome Firefox is have never used CPhog. The act of using CPhog alone doesn't make Firefox cool. It opens your eyes to the possibilities and then you start looking for other things like CPhog and your eyes are suddenly open to all sorts of useful things all through Firefox. - (Self Quote)
-
Seems like your everyday average client :) Coulda, woulda, shoulda doesn't matter if you don't. :beer:
:jig:True enough.:-D
If we all used the Plain English compiler every post in the lounge would be a programming question.:cool:
Welcome to CP in your language. Post the unicode version in My CP Blog [ ^ ] now.People who don't understand how awesome Firefox is have never used CPhog. The act of using CPhog alone doesn't make Firefox cool. It opens your eyes to the possibilities and then you start looking for other things like CPhog and your eyes are suddenly open to all sorts of useful things all through Firefox. - (Self Quote)
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
philosophical issues, something you see high school students entertaining themselves with, before they get girlfriends and a real life.
I'm no longer in high school. And when I was, I wasn't thinking about stuff like this. Apparently you think philosophy is immature. I disagree.
Marc Clifton wrote:
So, am I being flippant or not?
I think so. But, it wouldn't be as much fun if we all enjoyed the same things. So go ahead. Somone said: We don't stop having fun when we're old; we're old when we stop having fun. ---------- Some problems are so complex that you have to be highly intelligent and well informed just to be undecided about them. - Laurence J. Peters
I don't think it's even philosophical because it's a self-enforced restraint. You're defining the table as listing all self-referencing tables. You could just as easily define it as a table that lists all self-referencing tables besides itself. It's just like saying, "I am sitting and yet I'm not!" and claiming it's some sort of profound paradox. It's not...It's just dumb.
-
I don't think it's even philosophical because it's a self-enforced restraint. You're defining the table as listing all self-referencing tables. You could just as easily define it as a table that lists all self-referencing tables besides itself. It's just like saying, "I am sitting and yet I'm not!" and claiming it's some sort of profound paradox. It's not...It's just dumb.
espeir wrote:
all self-referencing tables besides itself
all and besides are mutually exclusive
espeir wrote:
claiming it's some sort of profound paradox. It's not...It's just dumb.
That is insulting. ---------- Some problems are so complex that you have to be highly intelligent and well informed just to be undecided about them. - Laurence J. Peters
-
espeir wrote:
all self-referencing tables besides itself
all and besides are mutually exclusive
espeir wrote:
claiming it's some sort of profound paradox. It's not...It's just dumb.
That is insulting. ---------- Some problems are so complex that you have to be highly intelligent and well informed just to be undecided about them. - Laurence J. Peters
EricDV wrote:
all and besides are mutually exclusive
That's the point...You're inventing the "all" constraint when it's not necessary since you're the one defining the table.
EricDV wrote:
That is insulting.
A duel then!
-
EricDV wrote:
all and besides are mutually exclusive
That's the point...You're inventing the "all" constraint when it's not necessary since you're the one defining the table.
EricDV wrote:
That is insulting.
A duel then!
espeir wrote:
you're the one defining the table
Sure the paradox can be avoided by redefining the table’s structure. However, it is conceptually impossible to have a complete list of tables in a database that are not self-referencing because of the paradox. If this is uninteresting to you, then fine. Don’t waste your time stopping to tell me about it. Go on about your day, and leave me in my own little world of dumbness.
espeir wrote:
A duel then!
I'm not looking for trouble. I'm just trying to have a good time. ---------- Some problems are so complex that you have to be highly intelligent and well informed just to be undecided about them. - Laurence J. Peters
-
EricDV wrote:
would so easily brush this aside
Partly I'm being flippant. Partly not.
EricDV wrote:
Bertrand Russell was a pretty bright guy.
Yes, but it's an artificial problem that enforces a paradox because of its constraints. The paradox is easily avoided if you create a new class that is the union of X and N (from the website). And that's partly what programming and problem solving is all about--resolving constraints so you can get out of the paradox. IMO, Russell's paradox falls into the category of philosophical issues, something you see high school students entertaining themselves with, before they get girlfriends and a real life. So, am I being flippant or not? Marc Pensieve Some people believe what the bible says. Literally. At least [with Wikipedia] you have the chance to correct the wiki -- Jörgen Sigvardsson
Marc Clifton wrote:
IMO, Russell's paradox falls into the category of philosophical issues, something you see high school students entertaining themselves with, before they get girlfriends and a real life.
High school students? No. University students? Yes. We've been dealing with this in my theory of computability class. It's not even really a philosophical thing. It has direct application to what can and cannot be computed.
Once you wanted revolution
Now you're the institution
How's it feel to be the man? -
I don't think it's even philosophical because it's a self-enforced restraint. You're defining the table as listing all self-referencing tables. You could just as easily define it as a table that lists all self-referencing tables besides itself. It's just like saying, "I am sitting and yet I'm not!" and claiming it's some sort of profound paradox. It's not...It's just dumb.
I guess you consider this just dumb. :doh: Some consider it the most important mathematical theorem of the twentieth century. Godel's theorem[^]
I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book, only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives - Mark McCutcheon
-
I don't think it's even philosophical because it's a self-enforced restraint. You're defining the table as listing all self-referencing tables. You could just as easily define it as a table that lists all self-referencing tables besides itself. It's just like saying, "I am sitting and yet I'm not!" and claiming it's some sort of profound paradox. It's not...It's just dumb.
Just because you're ignorant with respect to how something like Russell's paradox is applicable to what you do each and every day does not make it dumb. And calling it that only reinforces your ignorance in the face of others.
Once you wanted revolution
Now you're the institution
How's it feel to be the man? -
Marc Clifton wrote:
IMO, Russell's paradox falls into the category of philosophical issues, something you see high school students entertaining themselves with, before they get girlfriends and a real life.
High school students? No. University students? Yes. We've been dealing with this in my theory of computability class. It's not even really a philosophical thing. It has direct application to what can and cannot be computed.
Once you wanted revolution
Now you're the institution
How's it feel to be the man?David Stone wrote:
We've been dealing with this in my theory of computability class. It's not even really a philosophical thing. It has direct application to what can and cannot be computed.
I had an inclining that that might be so, but I'm curious, what's a real world example? Marc Pensieve Some people believe what the bible says. Literally. At least [with Wikipedia] you have the chance to correct the wiki -- Jörgen Sigvardsson
-
David Stone wrote:
We've been dealing with this in my theory of computability class. It's not even really a philosophical thing. It has direct application to what can and cannot be computed.
I had an inclining that that might be so, but I'm curious, what's a real world example? Marc Pensieve Some people believe what the bible says. Literally. At least [with Wikipedia] you have the chance to correct the wiki -- Jörgen Sigvardsson
Russell's paradox was used by Turing to prove that the Halting problem was undecidable. That's the most well known application. Essentially, Turing proved that wecan't develop a general purpose algorithm to prove that a machine will not go into an infinite loop. Here's some more about the Halting Problem[^]. The other major application, that Andy already mentioned earlier, being Gödel's incompleteness theorems[^].
Once you wanted revolution
Now you're the institution
How's it feel to be the man? -
David Stone wrote:
We've been dealing with this in my theory of computability class. It's not even really a philosophical thing. It has direct application to what can and cannot be computed.
I had an inclining that that might be so, but I'm curious, what's a real world example? Marc Pensieve Some people believe what the bible says. Literally. At least [with Wikipedia] you have the chance to correct the wiki -- Jörgen Sigvardsson
Here. I found a really good explanation of it. (I'm not even sure how I found this now. I've been following links around the web for the better part of an hour now.) This PDF[^], which, I believe is an except from this book[^], written by this prof. at Berkeley[^]. The Part about Turing is down on page 3, but if you've never read about Godel, then you might want to start at the beginning. I especially love this quote:
And when we saw the computer, when we saw its code - and Turing saw it first - we were looking at complexity incarnate. And then suddenly we saw complexity everywhere. It materialized, it crystalized around us - even though it had always been there. We have yet to recover from the shock.
Once you wanted revolution
Now you're the institution
How's it feel to be the man? -
That's why mathematicians invented Class Theory. Do a course in Class Theory and if you survive with your brain still inside your head then you've done well. It's the reason mathematicians don't need drugs. cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
-
Here. I found a really good explanation of it. (I'm not even sure how I found this now. I've been following links around the web for the better part of an hour now.) This PDF[^], which, I believe is an except from this book[^], written by this prof. at Berkeley[^]. The Part about Turing is down on page 3, but if you've never read about Godel, then you might want to start at the beginning. I especially love this quote:
And when we saw the computer, when we saw its code - and Turing saw it first - we were looking at complexity incarnate. And then suddenly we saw complexity everywhere. It materialized, it crystalized around us - even though it had always been there. We have yet to recover from the shock.
Once you wanted revolution
Now you're the institution
How's it feel to be the man?David Stone wrote:
I've been following links around the web for the better part of an hour now.)
Yikes! Thanks! I'm reading... (great quote too). Marc Pensieve Some people believe what the bible says. Literally. At least [with Wikipedia] you have the chance to correct the wiki -- Jörgen Sigvardsson
-
David Stone wrote:
I've been following links around the web for the better part of an hour now.)
Yikes! Thanks! I'm reading... (great quote too). Marc Pensieve Some people believe what the bible says. Literally. At least [with Wikipedia] you have the chance to correct the wiki -- Jörgen Sigvardsson
Marc Clifton wrote:
Yikes!
Heh. I actually tend to do that pretty often. I'll start in one place and just keep clicking around on stuff that looks interesting. Computability is actually really interesting. Turing Machines, Finite State Automata, P vs NP completeness. Fun stuff.
And when we saw the computer, when we saw its code - and Turing saw it first - we were looking at complexity incarnate. And then suddenly we saw complexity everywhere. It materialized, it crystalized around us - even though it had always been there.
We have yet to recover from the shock. -
Marc Clifton wrote:
I'm working on that article, it's just going sloooow.
It must be catching. I'm having the same problem. I launched an internal website a few days ago and the clients keep wanting me to change certain things. * We want all users to be able to access X. ... * Oops no we don't. We only want these users to access X. ... * Well, now all the users who cannot access X want to know if they can get a Y to access. ... Loopus Infinitus :sigh:
If we all used the Plain English compiler every post in the lounge would be a programming question.:cool:
Welcome to CP in your language. Post the unicode version in My CP Blog [ ^ ] now.People who don't understand how awesome Firefox is have never used CPhog. The act of using CPhog alone doesn't make Firefox cool. It opens your eyes to the possibilities and then you start looking for other things like CPhog and your eyes are suddenly open to all sorts of useful things all through Firefox. - (Self Quote)
LOL you must work for us Pablo
-
Looks like this turned into an educational experience in the end...It's pretty interesting...you got my 5 Pablo