Re: [isabelle] A tautological error?
Ha, I thought I was reading something from the FOM mailing list. They are
more interested in this sort of thing:
On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 9:08 AM, Lawrence Paulson <lp15 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> Iâm afraid your question is off topic for this mailing list. Please ask
> questions directly connected with Isabelle. There are plenty of forums
> where you can discuss the philosophy of mathematics.
> Larry Paulson
> > On 11 Jul 2016, at 13:40, Andreas RÃhler <andreas.roehler at easy-emacs.de>
> > Hi all,
> > the Russel's Paradox constitutes a surprise:
> > Doesn't it ignore the Subject-Object-Relation of all statement?No
> definition might define it's own definition. As someone upheld a recursive
> function here: Any recursive function must be defined before calling it,
> the recursion is no defining-process, it comes afterwards.
> > Kind of a tautological error?
> > As far as Cantor is the guilty, well, Russell should have rejected
> Cantors exaggeration...
> > Cheers,
> > Andreas
This archive was generated by a fusion of
Pipermail (Mailman edition) and