Virgil wrote: > In article <email@example.com>, > "Richard Henry" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > >>Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: >> >>>(I mean, how do you even properly define >>>'computable' - Cantor type diagonal arguments are always going to say >>>any definition is incomplete, like 'the smallest number that cannot be >>>described in less than 13 words.') > > > As there are quite reasonable interpretatations of "number in which > "smallest" does not happen, one would need to say 'the smallest natural > number that cannot be described in less than thirteen words.' > > Which cooks the conflict.
If you work in a set theory without the axiom of infinity, it will surprize you when I bring the paradox back to life by replacing thirteen by fourteen. But since I do assume the axiom of infinity, I have a general principle for bringing back the paradox no matter what you do to the sentence. :-)