Larks comments on But Somebody Would Have Noticed - Less Wrong

36 Post author: Alicorn 04 May 2010 06:56PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (250)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Larks 13 May 2010 09:30:27AM 1 point [-]

Why is R(X) = not(X(X)) only for R =/= X? In Russell's version, X should vary over all predicates/sets, meaning when instance X with R, we get

R(R) = ¬R(R)

as per the paradox.