Re: The set of all JOKES.....
- From: "John Jones" <jonescardiff@xxxxxxx>
- Date: 23 Feb 2007 12:54:47 -0800
On Feb 22, 6:03?pm, "charlesweh...@xxxxxxxxxxx"
<charlesweh...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 21 Feb., 21:25, "John Jones" <jonescard...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Fine. But as I've noted elsewhere, "itself" is not a bona fide set.
"Itself" is not supposed to be a "bony Fido" set.
The story begins with "This is the set of all jokes that does include
itself".
The first of those jokes is
"This is the set of all jokes that does include "This is the set of
all jokes that does include itself". ".
We can call this the BINARY joke.
The next joke is
"This is the set of all jokes that does include "This is the set of
all jokes that does include "This is the set of all jokes that does
include itself". ". ".
This will be the TERNARY joke.
We continue ad nauseam, ad infinitum. This shows that there are
infinite jokes in the original set.
The joke is that you will never be able to stop writing until you
realise that you are eliminating the word "itself" by SUBSTITUTION
with the joke you began with. How many times is that mistake made?
Once (Binary), twice (Ternary) or infinitely?
Going to the binary, we see that it declares itself to be a set. It
can therefore only be a subset of the original joke.
If we make the mistake once, the first joke WITHIN the binary set
appears:
"This is the set of all jokes that does include "This is the set of
all jokes that does include "This is the set of all jokes that does
include "This is the set of all jokes that does include itself". ". ".
".
There are four RESTARTS (beginning with "this") in this joke, and the
next has six. The set of all binary jokes is therefore NON-PRIME, and
has multiples of two.
Similarly, there are N times THREE restarts in the ternary set, where
n is a non-zero integer.
Thus the jokes within the subsets always have a non-prime number of
restarts.
There is only one joke that includes all the primes:
"This is the set of all jokes that does include itself".
Charles Douglas Wehner
Yes, we can never stop the process of substituting for 'itself'. But
the first move was untenable anyway:
Which is 'this' set? And how can you refer to a self-reference
('itself')?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: The set of all JOKES.....
- From: charleswehner@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: The set of all JOKES.....
- References:
- The set of all JOKES.....
- From: charleswehner@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: The set of all JOKES.....
- From: John Jones
- Re: The set of all JOKES.....
- From: charleswehner@xxxxxxxxxxx
- The set of all JOKES.....
- Prev by Date: Re: Is wittgensteins colour exclusion problem formalizable?
- Next by Date: Re: OUTGOEDELING A HUMAN?
- Previous by thread: Re: The set of all JOKES.....
- Next by thread: Re: The set of all JOKES.....
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|