peteolcott

2018-02-08 04:12:52 UTC

Permalink

On Wednesday, October 13, 1999 at 2:00:00 AM UTC-5, iamyhwh wrote:Raw Message

> copyright 1999 by ***@home.com

>

> SET "A" everyone that the barber shaves.

> SET "B" everyone that does not shave themselves.

> SET "C" everyone that does shave themselves.

> SET "D" the barber himself.

>

> SET "A" and SET "B" are identical sets.

> SET "D" must come from the intersection of SET "A" and SET "C".

> Therefore SET "D" must come from the intersection of SET "B"

> and SET "C".

>

The step that I did not say 19 years ago (because it is implied)

is because the intersection of two disjoint sets is the empty set

then set "D" is the empty set, and therefore no such barber exists.

So after all of these years the barber "paradox" is simply false

and never an actual paradox at all.

More recently I realized the the set of all sets that do not contain

themselves is simply semantically incoherent because nothing can

possibly ever completely contain itself. The base concept (knowledge

ontology inheritance hierarchy) of containment forbids any thing

from ever totally containing itself.

When-so-ever we are talking about sets it is always total containment

and not just containment. No thing is ever partially in any specific set.

Copyright 1999, 2018 Pete Olcott