Re: [isabelle] A tautological error?



Andreas,

there might indeed be people here who are interested in this question and
able to answer

but I recommend to ask such questions at 

http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/philosophy-of-mathemat
ics

or at

http://mathoverflow.net/questions/tagged/math-philosophy

- Gergely

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cl-isabelle-users-bounces at lists.cam.ac.uk
[mailto:cl-isabelle-users-
> bounces at lists.cam.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Andreas RÃhler
> Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 2:41 PM
> To: cl-isabelle-users at lists.cam.ac.uk
> Subject: [isabelle] A tautological error?
> 
> 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

<<attachment: winmail.dat>>



This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail (Mailman edition) and MHonArc.