Ads
related to: grelling nelson paradoxes book 2
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The Grelling–Nelson paradox arises from the question of whether the term "non-self-descriptive" is self-descriptive. It was formulated in 1908 by Kurt Grelling and Leonard Nelson, and is sometimes mistakenly attributed to the German philosopher and mathematician Hermann Weyl [1] thus occasionally called Weyl's paradox or Grelling's paradox.
Grelling–Nelson paradox: Is the word "heterological", meaning "not applicable to itself", a heterological word? (A close relative of Russell's paradox .) Hilbert–Bernays paradox : If there was a name for a natural number that is identical to a name of the successor of that number, there would be a natural number equal to its successor.
4.2 Paradoxes by change of language. 4.2.1 König's paradox. ... There are close similarities between Russell's paradox in set theory and the Grelling–Nelson ...
Kurt Grelling was born on 2 March 1886 in Berlin. His father, the Doctor of Jurisprudence Richard Grelling, and his mother, Margarethe (née Simon), were Jewish.Shortly after his arrival in 1905 at University of Göttingen, Grelling began a collaboration with philosopher Leonard Nelson, with whom he tried to solve Russell's paradox, which had shaken the foundations of mathematics when it was ...
A notable exception to the above may be the Grelling–Nelson paradox, in which words and meaning are the elements of the scenario rather than people and hair-cutting. Though it is easy to refute the barber's paradox by saying that such a barber does not (and cannot) exist, it is impossible to say something similar about a meaningfully defined ...
The U.S. Poet Laureate and author of 'In Praise of Mystery' on Maggie Nelson, 'Less,' and the book that surprised her.
It has a 2-year warranty, comes with 10-hour battery life, and a lightweight case that has a kickstand — perfect for keeping little ones occupied when you need to get stuff done. $39 at Walmart ...
The "paradox of the binary tree" is a paradox of the author's own making; see the sci.math thread "Review of Muckenheim's Book". Wikipedia is not for original research. In summary: the article is poorly organized, lacks historical context, mixes together paradoxes of naive set theory with assertions of axiomatic set theory, makes incorrect or ...