Timeline for Does Wittgensteins own solution to Russells Paradox actually work?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
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 |