An instance of Russell's paradox?

Hello,
I have been studying Prolog for a while, and stumbled across several
difficulties which I seem to be unable to overcome on my own. Since I
am doing it all solely for the purpose of understanding FOL (and
Russell's PM straight after that) I have let myself choose Sci.Logic as
the addressee of my questions. Hopefully, someone can kindly spare a
while for me on this.

1. Can all algorithms be enumerated, or will that be another
formulation of Russell's paradox (with the list of all algorithms being
another way of expressing the set of all sets)?

2. Can all predicates be generalized as having infinite arity, e.g. a
predicate "philosopher(socrates)." as being "philosopher(socrates, ...,
....)." Please, what terms are there after "socrates"?

3. Since "philosopher(socrates)." is the operator notation for the list
"[philosopher, socrates]", please, what is the difference between a
predicate and an atom?

Thank you very much indeed for your time.
Tom

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: finding nearest place
    ... can overcome the artificial waits, disk accesses and quadratic time ... algorithms in the OS. ...
    (comp.programming)
  • =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re=3A_short_proof_to_G=F6del=27s_incompleteness_theorem=3F?=
    ... The set of predicates Awith one variable n, ... incomplete or incorrect) if you had proved that the predicate Ris ... set of algorithms is enumerable. ... So there are sets of naturals which no algorithm computes. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: An instance of Russells paradox?
    ... > difficulties which I seem to be unable to overcome on my own. ... Can all algorithms be enumerated, ... Diagonalize out of your enumeration to prove that not all functions are ... > another way of expressing the set of all sets)? ...
    (sci.logic)