Sets containing itself are (in)famous. — VincePee
Alas, poor VincePee! I knew him, forum members, a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy. — T Clark
Curry's paradox does not require negation. — Banno
Why does a self reference lead to paradoxes so many times? — VincePee
Let P be the statement — Banno
↪Banno The truth table doesn't match what's going on in Curry's paradox. — TheMadFool
You want a formal proof, there are plenty of examples online. — Banno
↪Banno The truth table doesn't match what's going on in Curry's paradox.
— TheMadFool
One way to think about it is, if P just is P⊃Q, then the only line in the truth table that is not a contradiction is line 1; if line 1 is true, anything follows from P. — Banno
The point of bringing in CUrry's paradox was to counter Mad's suggestion that it was self-reference and negation that resulted in paradox. It isn't. — Banno
SO the next step is to work out what else they have in common...? — Banno
e don't consider a conditional as a compound statement like we do a conjunction or a disjunction. — TheMadFool
Hmm. A conditional is just shorthand for a conjunction: P⊃Q ≡ ~(P & ~Q) — Banno
And what of Yalbo's paradox? No self-reference there. — Banno
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.