```Date: Feb 6, 2013 1:29 AM
Author: Graham Cooper
Subject: Re: This is False. 0/0 {x | x ~e x} e {x | x ~e x} A single Principle<br> to Resolve Several Paradoxes

On Feb 6, 2:01 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>wrote:> Russell's paradoxes, mostly, are illinguistic,> essentially not properly tensed.>> the village barber has to go to the next village,> iff he doesn't want to do it, himself.----------------------------------all(MAN) : menif  [ not [ shave  MAN   MAN ]]    [ shave  barber   MAN ]"if a man doesn't get a shave by himself  then the barber will shave him"-----------------------------------shave X  barber?=====================Remove the ALL(){ M | M e men }  C   { M |  not(shave(M,M) -> shave(barber,M) }i.e.  not shaving yourself then the barber shaves you        holds for all men (atleast)the Paradox still holds over all men, by the possibility of theconstruction of the above formula.if you know of an algorithmic process that parses this into{ M | M=/=barber -> M e men }          C   { M |  not(shave(M,M) -> shave(barber,M) }then you could dismiss it as being a paradox, but you'll probably haveto algorithmically detect the contradiction 1st in which case provableset specification can eliminate the definition (rather than rewriteit).not(provable(THM))  <->   derive(not(THM))    (eg a contradiction)provable(THM)   <->   exist(set(....THM))Herc--www.BLoCKPROLOG.com
```