Jeremiah

I shared this paradox with lots of people, non-math people, not a single one of them reacted that way. I share every paradox I post here with friends ...

I understand that some feel the axiom schema of specification resolves the paradox, I was speaking generally to the notion that if it is nonsense we c...

You can't make mathematical paradoxes go way by just claiming they are nonsense, as even if they are nonsense, they arose out of our math. This is not...

Well it is right in that post you quoted, " it still exist if you apply proof by contradiction to the question." The fact that it can be shown by exis...

You just described one half of the paradox. We already know it can't be resolved, that is why it is a paradox.

Also just drop the barber example, as you are falling off track.

If your solution is the paradox does not exist because the paradox has no solution, then all you are doing is describing a paradox, not resolving one.

An empty set is still a set.

Russell's Paradox remains unresolved and it seems that the only approach that has been suggested so far, is to pretend it is not there.

You have not given any argument as to why it must be denied.

People focus on the barber, as they tend to believe he is the center of the paradox. Maybe this is becuse he is the subject of the sentence, and for t...

Sure it is a good prior, I don't disagree with that; however, a sample over many coin flip would actually give you a distribution of loaded flips. Whi...

Certainly different than claiming he cannot exist at all and if he could carry it out then it would not be a paradox.

Actually all coins are loaded, no coin flip is exactly 1:1. Fair coin flips only exist in our imagination or possibly also computer simulations, I don...

The barber is a simple example that is it; one that I think reads clearly as Russell's Paradox, but if a reader disagree then fine. It is only an exam...

Say this barber was a real person, and this is the task he defined to set out to do. Then when he got down to trying to decide if he should shave hims...

Proof by contradiction does not actually resolve this paradox, it still exist if you apply proof by contradiction to the question: Is R a member of it...

It makes complete sense and I am not interested in your straw-man.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/183352

I actually already addressed this argument of yours.

I need a good explanation of why you think that is relevant before I spend my time on it. I am not trying to evade or be rude, I just don't have a lot...

I don't think you actually know anything about statistics. I think you are confusing probability, a branch of mathematics with the branch of science k...

You can't resolve a paradox but simply stating that it is not a paradox. A paradox by any other name is still a conundrum.

Every single one of these threads I have made someone jumps out and goes, "Oh it is not a paradox, therefore paradox resolved." It gets old and I get ...

Also you forgot the link to the OED, which provided the definition of a paradox. Try reading it, as it turns out contradictions can be paradoxes. Why ...

I may have been off somewhat on appeal to authority, but that is not a reason to sweep aside 100 plus years of history, especially when we are talking...

I don't accept your authority on the argument of authority, guess that means you are wrong.

Argument from authority is only wrong if the authority is misplaced. I think over 100 years of history is a very strong authority.

From the OP: The question is "Is R a member of itself?" There are to possible statements we can derive from that question. Our statements to be proven...

Where is yours?

I can tell that writing is not your strong point.

The barber shaves P and Q The barber shaves Q. Those are two different things. At the very least your choice of wording is very ambiguous.

Let's cut the game, when you added the word and you changed the sentence.

Well at this time, that is my conclusion.

Worried you can't read?

Can't? Don't know how?

I find it very interesting you are now calling it a paradox. You realized your mistake.

Except you had the barber shaving two groups.

Break it into symbols and you'll have Russell's Paradox. But I need to go to bed.

There is a huge semantic difference. You are talking about two groups the OP is talking about one.

You added an "and"? It is not "all and"; he shaves " every man in the town who does not shave himself." He does not shave people who shave themselves....

This is exactly Russell's Paradox.

And that is not the paradox in the OP. Which is my point.

The set condition is the paradox, it is very important to understand that difference.

It does not actually say he shaves all. It is every man who does not shave himself, it is a set condition.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/paradox You do realize this has been a recognized paradox since 1901?

Far more often than you.

The barber can exist, that is not the question. The question is if he shaves himself.

You are trolling, that's the only reason you even join my threads. You never contribute. You are trying to bait me.

But the barber is psychically cable of shaving himself or not, our problem is with the group. Does he fit the group, or not? That is where the paradox...