Skip to main content
10 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Jun 17, 2020 at 8:34 history edited CommunityBot
Commonmark migration
Nov 28, 2013 at 8:29 answer added Mozibur Ullah timeline score: 3
Nov 28, 2013 at 8:22 vote accept Mozibur Ullah
Nov 28, 2013 at 6:53 history edited Mozibur Ullah CC BY-SA 3.0
added 425 characters in body
Nov 28, 2013 at 2:31 comment added Mozibur Ullah @Michael: Wittgenstein was probably not thinking of the contexts that yo've suggested. The problem is as you've pointed out what does he mean by function.
Nov 27, 2013 at 19:36 answer added Mauro ALLEGRANZA timeline score: 4
Nov 27, 2013 at 19:22 history tweeted twitter.com/#!/StackPhilosophy/status/405778555734622208
Nov 27, 2013 at 18:41 comment added Michael Wittgenstein's assertion that "function cannot be its own argument" needs precise clarification. There are many contexts where functions are routinely used as their own arguments, ranging from Universal Turing Machine in Computer Science to self-learning algorithms in Artificial Intelligence. Therefore the meaning of the word "function" needs to be made very precise and the context where it cannot apply to itself very explicit with the explanation why the recursion is forbidden. Without such clarification the argument does not stand.
Nov 27, 2013 at 17:18 comment added David H Neat question. I haven't seen this version of Russell's paradox before. Of the cuff, I'm fairly this Wittgenstein's paradox ends up being equivalent to Russell's. W's solution of stipulating the axiom "a function cannot be its own argument" is also highly reminiscent to how Russell initially tackled it by postulating that certain self-referential classes like {x|x∉x} are not sets.
Nov 27, 2013 at 13:52 history asked Mozibur Ullah CC BY-SA 3.0