The barber shaves those and only those who do not shave themselves — Gregory

Apparently not anyone.

Also. This thread in a nutshell.

But he can't shave himself because he shaves only those who do not shave themselves. — Gregory

Therefore he does not shave himself, making him the kind of person who he does shave.

Therefore he does shave himself, making him the kind of person who he does not shave.

Therefore he does not shave himself ...


That's why this is a paradox.

Not at all. The question is: Does the barber shave himself or not? Your 'solution' doesn't address this at all.

The barber cannot shave himself because he shaves ONLY those who do NOT shave themselves.

"Therefore he does not shave himself, making him the kind of person who he does shave." He shaves others

"Therefore he does shave himself, making him the kind of person who he does not shave." No he doesn't shave himself. He can't because of the paradox

The trick in the sentence is that it implies its talking about people other than himself. If we put the true intention of the sentence together we get:

The barber only shaves others who do not shave themselves.

Now, if we add in the idea that this also includes him, there is no paradox, we just realize the sentence contains a contradiction.

The barber only shaves others who do not shave themselves. The barber also shaves himself, because he does not shave himself.

The first sentence makes sense. The second sentence, which was attempted to be placed implicitly within the OP's sentence, reveals itself to be a nonsense statement when made implicit. If you combine the first and the second sentence together, then the contradictory part of the second sentence makes the combined sentence false, but not a paradox.

There is no paradox, but contradiction instead? Nop. He does not shave himself because he shaves only those who not shave themselves. The paradox is one sentence: the barber shaves those and only those who do not shave themselves.

The barber shaves those who do not shave themselves. We add "and only those" because it does not say enough otherwise

The difference between a paradox and a poorly constructed sentence can be tricky. A paradox would be the result of a logical concept taken to its conclusion. For example, someone is able to time travel, and ends up accidently killing their mother before they were born. A paradox denotes something can happen, but if something is done within that action, it could negate the possibility of being able to do that action to begin with. This is a contradiction, but it is a contradiction that states limits within action A that do not allow it to do action B.

A poorly constructed sentence is written as a contradiction. Poor sentences often come about because there is implicit cultural understanding that confuses the issue. That's why I broke the sentences down into explicit parts, removing the implicit assumptions that muddy the waters.

If you are saying that he shaves everyone who doesn't shave themselves, and also himself, then its fine. If you say that he shaves everyone who doesn't shave themselves, and himself, even though he doesn't shave himself, then its a contradiction. We can remove the first part about "other people", because its unnecessary. You cannot both shave, and not shave yourself. That's the contradiction, not a paradox. If you include a contradiction with extra sentence combinations, it still doesn't negate the fact of the contradiction.

Shouldn't it be "The barber shaves Everyone who does not shave himself"? At any rate, this is a superficial 'paradox' because the statement is not, and cannot be true. It is a lie. Even in terms of set theory it is superficial because it assumes the is a "set of all sets..." but the entity that contains all sets is not and cannot be a set, yet it exists* so the assumption that this set exists is what causes the paradox. The entity that is 'all sets...' is an infinite set of sets, discussed here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/8334/russels-paradox

There is no paradox, but contradiction instead? — Gregory

Paradoxes are contradictions. They're just often not obviously so.

It still seems to me if he shaves those, even everyone, who does not shave themselves, then he couldn't shave himself

Otherwise its too ambiguous to mean anything

Suppose we have a town with three men: a barber (B), a philosopher (P) who doesn't shave himself, and a mathematician (M) who does.

Now define a set R as all and only men who shave all and only men who don't shave themselves.

1. M is never a member of R because he shaves a man who shaves himself.
2. P can't be a member either because he doesn't shave himself, so he'd have to shave himself to be a member, but he doesn't.
3. What about B? He would have to shave P and not M. No problem. If he shaves himself, he'd be out, like M, but if he doesn't, he'd be out like P. So B can't be a member no matter what he does.

So R = { }. No one shaves all and only men who do not shave themselves, therefore the barber does not shave all and only men who do not shave themselves. The three cases are exhaustive, in fact: no one can be a member of R whether they shave themselves or not. — Srap Tasmaner

Number 2 is wrong. The philosopher doesn't shave himself so he is in the set of those who shave all those who do not themselves. You tried to add another loop Srap but it's the same paradox, which I already solved and I don't know why you guys don't get it. I read your post very slowly, slowing my heart rate, and it's clear this paradox is making something at of nothing

No one shaves all and "only men" who do not shave themselves? Do you realize this would affect empirical reality of this idiot paradox were true?

Number 2 is wrong. The philosopher doesn't shave himself so he is in the set of those who shave all those who do not themselves. — Gregory

Let S be the set of all men who don't shave themselves.
P is a member of S.
To be a member of R, you have to shave all the members of S.
Since P is a member of S, to be a member of R he would have to shave himself.
But he doesn't.
Therefore P is not a member of R.

You tried to add another loop Srap but it's the same paradox, which I already solved and I don't know why you guys don't get it. I read your post very slowly, slowing my heart rate, and it's clear this paradox is making something at of nothing — Gregory

Every person who shaves himself is named John. Every person who does not shave himself is named James. The barber shaves every person named James and doesn't shave anyone named John.

What is the barber's name?

The barber shaves those and only those who do not shave themselves

So there are perhaps people who do not shave themselves whom he does not shave. And those who shave themselves he does not shave. But he can't shave himself because he shaves only those who do not shave themselves. So anyone can shave the barber except himself

Solved? — Gregory

No, not solved. Also a poor framing of the original problem.

There is a town. It has two laws about Barbers.
First law; Everyone has to be shaved by the barber.
Second law; No one can shave himself.

The solution is simple. The barber shaves himself. First law states "Everyone".

By way of the first law, the barber shaves no man who shaves himself, except himself because he is ultimately still accounted for when the word "Everyone" is used. He's by law logically exempt from the second law because he's the only barber in the town.

Now it's solved. It's just a logic puzzle.

Next people will start believing a no-cat is a real animal based on descriptions about the number of tails it has as opposed to a real cat.

I don't know why you guys don't talk like adults

If there was really a paradox here it would affect material reality. I originally stated the paradox accurately so it could be understood as language works.

His name is James

.

Your latest post is illogical. It has me have a "mad laugh" . I know what I need to know about logic. I have a full vision of it. Are you into math or just logic? Math is too tedious but I have a full vision of it too.

His name is James — Gregory

The barber shaves every person named James (as per the third rule), and so if his name is James then he shaves himself. But if he shaves himself then his name is John (as per the first rule).

BS

It's not a logical paradox. It's language game that's cleared up when you COMBINE language with logic

Which part is bullshit? That he shaves himself because his name is James or that his name is John because he shaves himself?

The

Dude, if you have one group doing something and another doing something, they are doing something. I didn't know you'd play a game that's idiotic

It's not a logical paradox. It's language game that's cleared up when you COMBINE language with logic — Gregory

Dear gods people listen to Gregory! Gregory knows, be more like Gregory. Make it a fucking meme.

Still though Gregory, you could have framed it a little better for them.

I couldn't have