TheMadFool

:up: :ok: Excellent question. If you remember our discussion about Mind No-Mind Equivalency Paradox and the more recent...er...engagement in the Knowl...

How right you are, it takes a great deal of ignorance to reduce Nagarjuna's philosophy to a technique - the odds are great that there's a lot more to ...

:sweat: So, I wasn't talking nonsense. That's news to me. The way it seems to me, there's no point in talking about a book - the book being a message ...

Possible but care to clarify. I respect your intuition if it's one but if you have good reasons, I'm all ears.

I guess the idea is to stop people, practitioners mainly, from cogitating in any sense of that word (Mu) by, in a way, distracting the mind with physi...

is different from you want everything. Seen thus, your question seems rather uninteresting. No offense intended.

Thanks for the encouraging words and I like the joke about how Blaise Pascal woul've written a shorter letter had he had the time :smile: What I find ...

I didn't know that. Updated my database. :up: As far as I'm concerned you hit the nail on the head. What I meant to do was offer an explanation on how...

I may have gone off on a tangent there. Do excuse the digression as I hadn't slept well. Let me summarize my thoughts for your convenience. a) The eas...

Thanks for replying and I just want to pick your brain on what I think is a link, tenuous though it may be between Nagarjuna's approach and the Zen no...

Streetlight Effect/The Drunkard's Search Principle. Seeking truths where they're easy to find is not my idea of good faith. Different strokes for diff...

An old thread I know but I think there's something interesting going on. Given any proposition p, there are 4 possible states it can be in, yes p, no ...

I see a paradox. If I'm anywhere near the ballpark, finding a shorter proof (should) take(s) longer than finding a longer proof? A dilemma in the maki...

Money seems to have two dimensions to it with respect to its value. The only good analogy that comes to mind is philately . A stamp, back in the days ...

Well, sorry. I have issues. I hope you'll cut me some slack and let my impudence slide. G'day. You've been very helpful.

Imagine a high security prison, like a set {...}. You're the prison warden and under your careful watch, there have been no untoward incidents - no pr...

No.

:ok: Thank you for your time.

Assume that it's impossible to make P a member of another set i.e. {{P}} is not possible or, more relevantly, always {P}. Now if sets csn contain them...

1. Take a set {P}. If it's impossible to make this set a member of another set, then {P} always. Any attempt {{P}} will result in {P} 2. P = {P} where...

So, am I to think that putting, say, a list of items e.g. 1, w, # inside curly braces like so, {1, w, #} amounts to doing nothing?

1. There's a set N 2. {N} does something to N 3. N = {N} 4. If N = {N} then {N} does nothing to N 5. {N} does nothing to N 6. {N} does something to N ...

Thanks for starting this thread. I'd like to share with you my finding regarding Russell's paradox. Russell's paradox boils down to whether the set of...

Suppose a set P 1. P = P Nothing was done to set P] 2. {P}. P was made an element of the set {P}. Something was done to P] 3. P = {P} 4. Nothing was d...

Work in progress.

Thanks for the clarification and I'm sorry if I've wasted my time but I suppose for people likey yourself who have to deal with those less knowledgeab...

Sorry to hear that.

Sorry, if it seemed as though I hadn't paid attention to it but my argument in the previous post seems to make your well-meaning explanation moot. 1. ...

Ok. I've run out of options. Let's get straight to the brass tacks. A set that doesn't contain itself = {1, &, :sad: } Now, consider the set {...} = N...

@"TonesInDeepFreeze" 1. Sets can contain themselves. 2. Suppose N is a set that contains itself 3. Let N = {x, N} where x is either no elements or x i...

That went over my head. Thank you for trying though. Keep it simple for me, ok. 1. Assume whatever axiom you want to/have to assume to prove the propo...

Correct but it's not just self-reference, it's also negation of some kind. The self-referential sentence, "I exist" doesn't create problems like the s...

Kindly point out a flaws in my argument if there are any. You mentioned that without the axiom of regularity, we can't prove ~Ex xex. As far as I can ...

Then, there can't be a set that contains itself. 1. All sets are sets that don't contain themselves 2. No sets that contain themselves are sets In oth...

So, set X = {X} = X1 That means, I can substitute X with {X}. Here goes, X = {{X}} = X2 X1 = X2 (should be) because both are X but {X} =/= {{X}}.

Here's a more direct reference to Godel's incompleteness theorem vis-à-vis the Liar paradox.

Please use the notation I prescribed viz. a set with its elements/members enumerated. A set that doesn't contain itself: {1, y, $} A set that contains...

Just give me one instance of a set that contains itself. I can't. Can you? Here's a set that doesn't contain itself: A = {7, &, troll} Here's a set th...

Thank You Wayfarer Please carry out your own investigations into the issue if you're interested of course. Good luck.

Ok. There are a couple of different ways sets can be written down as: 1. Set notation: S = {x | x is a prime number less than 10} 2. In words: S = {al...

How about the following argument. Please go easy on me. Suppose C = the set of all sets that don't contain itself 1. A set can contain itself like so ...

Above my paygrade. I'm expecting a raise soon!

I thought Russell's paradox was meant to undermine set theory. As far as I can tell, it begins as C = the set of all sets that doesn't contain itself....

Thank you. Have a G'day.

@"Amalac" I apologize for butting in but I want to run something by you. There are three parts to time - past, present, future. The future presents no...

I defer to your better judgement. @"Wayfarer" :wink:

I agree whole-heartedly.

I don't mean to be too intrusive but I do want to pick your brain regarding some interesting aspects of Godel's theorems but in a much broader context...

I defer to your better judgement.

p v ~p is always true. That makes it a tautology. And look at how you've turned out! Master, show me the way! :grin: