Re: The set of all JOKES.....

On 24 Feb., 20:47, "John Jones" <jonescard...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 24, 5:29?pm, "charlesweh...@xxxxxxxxxxx"





<charlesweh...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 23 Feb., 21:54, "John Jones" <jonescard...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

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')?

The set is "This is the set of all jokes that does include itself".

The jokes within the set are:

"This is the set of all jokes that does include "This is the set of
all jokes that does include itself".".

"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 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".".".".

"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 "This is the
set of all jokes that does include itself".".".".".

and so on to infinite length.

The first move was untenable. Correct. However, one can put any word
one likes into a sentence. By retaining the word "itself", one has
avoided the untenable move. This word is retained in the original,
which although a set, is not a joke.

When we fall into the trap of substituting that word, we have entered
into the collection of jokes. The question only remains - how many
times does one make the untenable move before one "twigs" that one
should leave the word UNCHANGED?

As one can put any word into a sentence that one wants to, one can put
"itself" in - as a word - without it necessarily referencing anything.
It is just a pattern of letters of the alphabet, which must be present
for the original specification to be met.

Charles Douglas Wehner

I don't dispute your analysis, but the first question to ask is this:
"This is the set of all jokes that does include itself"
- which is 'this' set of all jokes that does include itself'?..- Zitierten Text ausblenden -

- Zitierten Text anzeigen -

The string of words itself, which is not a joke until the untenable
substitution takes place. Then it expands out into all the jokes.

Charles Douglas Wehner

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The set of all JOKES.....
    ... And how can you refer to a self-reference ... The set is "This is the set of all jokes that does include itself". ... By retaining the word "itself", ... for the original specification to be met. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: The set of all JOKES.....
    ... The set is "This is the set of all jokes that does include itself". ... By retaining the word "itself", ... for the original specification to be met. ... but the first question to ask is this: ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: The set of all JOKES.....
    ... all jokes that does include itself".". ... for the original specification to be met. ... It is the string of words. ... that besets Godel, that besets realism and Kantian methodological ...
    (sci.logic)