Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Auto-antonym: A word that is encoded with opposing meanings. Absurdity; Excusable negligence: If a behavior is excusable, it is not negligence. Gödel's incompleteness theorems: and Tarski's undefinability theorem; Ignore all rules: To obey this rule, it is necessary to ignore it. Impossible object: A type of optical illusion.
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.
Although statements can be self referential without being paradoxical ("This statement is written in English" is a true and non-paradoxical self-referential statement), self-reference is a common element of paradoxes. One example occurs in the liar paradox, which is commonly formulated as the self-referential statement "This statement is false ...
Coincidentia oppositorum is a Latin phrase meaning coincidence of opposites. It is a neoplatonic term attributed to 15th century German polymath Nicholas of Cusa in his essay, De Docta Ignorantia (1440).
In literature, the paradox is an anomalous juxtaposition of incongruous ideas for the sake of striking exposition or unexpected insight. It functions as a method of literary composition and analysis that involves examining apparently contradictory statements and drawing conclusions either to reconcile them or to explain their presence.
Richard claimed that the flaw of the paradoxical construction was that the expression for the construction of the real number r does not actually define a real number unambiguously, because the statement refers to the construction of an infinite set of real numbers, of which r itself is a part.
A bootstrap paradox, also known as an information loop, an information paradox, [6] an ontological paradox, [7] or a "predestination paradox" is a paradox of time travel that occurs when any event, such as an action, information, an object, or a person, ultimately causes itself, as a consequence of either retrocausality or time travel.
If Smith really is a big spender but is not soft on crime, then both Smith's remark about Jones and Jones's last remark about Smith are paradoxical. Kripke proposes a solution in the following manner. If a statement's truth value is ultimately tied up in some evaluable fact about the world, that statement is "grounded".