The stupid question is the question not asked | |
PerlMonks |
Re^4: BlooP and FlooP and GlooP: Turing Equivalence, Lazy Evaluation, and Perl6by hv (Prior) |
on Mar 29, 2006 at 02:41 UTC ( [id://539857]=note: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
First, define S as the set of all sets that are members of themselves. That is, self-referential. The S set is well defined, and easy to see that it exists. I disagree: your definition of S is insufficient for me to deduce whether S contains S. It contains exactly the same hole as the definition of R, except that in the case of S it is consistent either way. More precisely, I read your definition as: .. and evaluating that for A = S gives the uninformative: .. and analogously:
I'd say therefore that these sets are not well-defined unless they additionally specify self-membership: .. and then everything is simultaneously hunky and dory. Hugo
In Section
Meditations
|
|