2018-02-08 04:12:52 UTC
> 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