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.

That's is literally what I said. My post:

I'm saying that even as metaphysical dialetheist I do not believe a "barber who shaves all and only those who do not shave themselves" cant exist.
— Me — MindForged

Are you serious? Your OP:

The town barber, who is a man, shaves exactly every man in the town who does not shave himself.
— Jeremiah — MindForged

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. That is what creates Russell's Paradox.

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 is, and in the meantime look up the meaning of a paradox.

I am asking what specifically is impossible. It is an easy enough question. If you can't tell me what is impossible, then how can you say it is impossible?

What is it you think is impossible?

It is not even the right application for Occam's Razor.

If the paradox has been resolved, as you said, then you should be able to fully and clearly answer the question. Unless of course the paradox was never really resolved. . .

Great, then tell me, does the barber shave himself?

Probability and statistics is a useful manmade tool. However, it is not a statement of fact. — wellwisher

No one here is claiming statistics are facts and in no respectable statistics text book is anyone rightfully claiming statistics are facts. In fact, they teach just the opposite. Everyone here knows statistics are estimating unknown parameters. So, you can put the soapbox away.

Also, Nature made humans and humans do what is in their nature to do; your division between what is natural and what is "man-made" is subjective and objectively does not exist. And odds are a ratio, it's chance that runs 0 to 1.

You have no clue what I am even talking about.

Did you even follow my meaning when I said delta x?

Yes it did, you are trying to do calculus without a delta x. You are doing it wrong, that is not a paradox just an error.

Because your understanding of calculus is very poor and incorrect.

The FTC is the total change F(b) - F(a) equal to the sum of small changes F(x of i) - F(x of i -1) and that is equal to the sum of the areas of rectangles in a Riemann sum approximation for f(x).

0+0 is not a change in x. You forgot the area slice.

0+0 is not a change in x.

We went over this already, when you read the whole thread let me know.

I plan on posting more of these paradoxes, these are exactly the type of content mathematically incline philosophers should be turning their skills towards. Some will generate a good amount of discussion, while others may not. I can't help that; however, Gabriel's Horn is one of the major paradoxes, it should be in these posts.

Gabriel's Horn is a mathematical paradox, and, like I said before, this is the math section for discussion of math topics.

Any mathematician of any sort, and any philosopher with an interests in mathematics, generally finds that interesting. It is definitely worthy of contemplation and discussion. If you can't wrap your head around that notion, then maybe, just maybe you don't belong here.

Star Trek fans talk about Star Trek, as mathematicians and mathematically incline philosophers talk about math. There is no greater reason beyond that simple fact. Those that want to make it out as if there is some other hidden agenda here are drama seekers.

Not interested, stay on topic.

If you could, would that resolve the paradox?

I am sorry, but I answered your question, the fact that it went over your head is not something I care about. Now you are dragging this thread off topic, so do you have anything to say about the horn? Can you resolve the paradox?

You might as well be asking Star Trek fans why they talk about Star Trek.

I'll give you a hint, it has nothing to do with a platypus.

Let me know if you figure it out.

It really does not matter the discrete being discussed here is really effectively discrete.