/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #11466013

502KiB, 1200x1514, 1200px-Bertrand_Russell_1957.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Fri 13 Mar 14:18:05 2020 No.11466013 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>11466015 >>11466025 >>11466127 >>11466183 >>11467447 >>11467658

YO homie , consider the set of all sets that have never been considerd.
This statement cannot be proven using the axioms , HAHAHA , ee what i did there i am le epic logic man , this is totally Math ,

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO plebbit.jpg, 10KiB, 193x197

Anonymous Fri 13 Mar 2020 14:20:02 No.11466015 Report

Quoted By: >>11466876

>>11466013
>le
knock knock. you must be familiar with this.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 13 Mar 2020 14:21:33 No.11466019 Report

Quoted By:

problem?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Russel-killer.jpg, 354KiB, 623x831

Anonymous Fri 13 Mar 2020 14:22:42 No.11466025 Report

Quoted By: >>11466127

>>11466013
Was ist das?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 13 Mar 2020 15:13:44 No.11466127 Report

Quoted By:

>>11466025
>>11466013
Was it autism ?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 13 Mar 2020 15:43:19 No.11466183 Report

Quoted By: >>11466193 >>11466444

>>11466013
i cant consider the set of all sets that have not been considered because by considering it i consider all those sets within it, thus making them considered.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 13 Mar 2020 15:47:57 No.11466193 Report

Quoted By:

>>11466183
The Question is , Does considering a set entail considering its elements ?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 13 Mar 2020 17:43:30 No.11466444 Report

Quoted By:

>>11466183
What if i consider the set of all sets ? Than sure the set of all sets that have never been considered is now just the empty set

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 13 Mar 2020 20:24:38 No.11466876 Report

Quoted By:

>>11466015
Are you really too autistic to notice OP is being ironic?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1552163915189.png, 552KiB, 1514x930

Anonymous Fri 13 Mar 2020 20:29:01 No.11466888 Report

Quoted By:

>dude intuitionism lmao

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 14 Mar 2020 00:50:15 No.11467447 Report

Quoted By:

>>11466013
Banter, in math form

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 14 Mar 2020 02:27:46 No.11467658 Report

Quoted By: >>11467668

>>11466013
i'm convinced set theory is a psyop

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 14 Mar 2020 02:34:52 No.11467668 Report

Quoted By:

>>11467658

It kind of is.

I used to be super into analytic philosophy, and as I recall Russell's proof that 1 + 1 = 2 comes down to something like this in logic notation:

f(a) . f(b) -> f(a, b)

But what really redpilled me was the point that you could not understand how that proves 1 + 1 = 2 if you did not already understand that 1 + 1 = 2. So I think all of set theory and all of the fundamentals of arithmetic are really just fancy forms of the regular English explanations of arithmetic and logic, which is to say, not perfect and water-tight and on some level hand wavy.

I still love Russell and all the work of him and his peers tho.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches