Paradox of Zero.

talanum1

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2025
Messages
269
Reaction score
62
We have:

(0 = 0, 0 -> True) -> (0 = 0 -> True) -> 0 = True

but we also define:

0 = empty set

which is false. We can't define 0 as the negated empty set because this implies 0 = 1 = 2 ..., so were stuck with the paradox.
 
That doesn't look like a valid logical formula. What does, "->" mean?

Also, you're mixing up different kinds of objects. Numbers, truth values, and sets are distinct. You appear to be using them interchangeably.
 
That doesn't look like a valid logical formula. What does, "->" mean?

Also, you're mixing up different kinds of objects. Numbers, truth values, and sets are distinct. You appear to be using them interchangeably.
It means: "therefore".

"0 = True" means we can assign the truth value "True" to zero. Zero is a set.
 
0 = True" means we can assign the truth value "True" to zero
We can't. It doesn't follow logically. 0=0 is a true statement. It doesn't make the number "0" true or false.

'Therefore', in logic is written as such: and not as such: ->
 
We can relate the empty set and "False", but the empty set is defined equal to "0", so we can relate "0" to "False". Just impose the properties of a variable onto "0".
 
Am I late to the neurodivergent convention?!
 

Yep
Choosing to ignore now, it's like speaking to a

guy-arguing.gif
 
0 = apple, apple = food, food = eaten, eaten = humans, by humans = on earth, earth = oblate spheroid, oblate spheroid = 0
 
I don’t do drugs but sometimes my wife leaves space gummies around the house, and then I find them, and think they’re just sweets, and then next thing I’m baked.
Your wife sounds awesome though.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 3WA
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X