Re: An instance of Russell's paradox?
- From: Jim Spriggs <jim.sprigs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 21:25:09 +0000 (UTC)
"A.T." wrote:
>
> 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,
Yes. An algorithm can be expressed in finite terms in a formal
language. Therefore there are no more than countably many of them.
> or will that be another
> formulation of Russell's paradox
Diagonalize out of your enumeration to prove that not all functions are
algorithmic.
> (with the list of all algorithms being
> another way of expressing the set of all sets)?
No, just a confusion.
(I'm amused by Eagleson's "I hope I am clear.")
--
I don't know who you are Sir, or where you come from,
but you've done me a power of good.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: An instance of Russell's paradox?
- From: A.T.
- Re: An instance of Russell's paradox?
- From: Barb Knox
- Re: An instance of Russell's paradox?
- References:
- An instance of Russell's paradox?
- From: A.T.
- An instance of Russell's paradox?
- Prev by Date: Re: An instance of Russell's paradox?
- Next by Date: Re: .999... = 1
- Previous by thread: Re: An instance of Russell's paradox?
- Next by thread: Re: An instance of Russell's paradox?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|