# Re: Theory of Everything based on E8 by Garrett Lisi

From: Torgny Tholerus <torgny.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 09:00:17 +0100

Jesse Mazer skrev:
>
>
>
>> Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 19:55:20 +0100
>> From: torgny.domain.name.hidden
>>
>>
>> As soon as you say "the set of ALL numbers", then you are forced to
>> define the word ALL here. And for every definition, you are forced to
>> introduce a "limit". It is not possible to define the word ALL without
>> introducing a limit. (Or making an illegal circular definition...)
>>
>
> Why can't you say "If it can be generated by the production rule/fits the criterion, then it's a member of the set"? I haven't used the word "all" there, and I don't see any circularity either.

What do you mean by a "well-defined criterion"? Is this a well-defined
criterion? :

The set R is defined by:

(x belongs to R) if and only if (x does not belong to x).

If it fits the criterion (x does not belong to x), then it's a member of
the set R.

Then we ask the question: "Is R a member of the set R?". How shall we
use the criterion to answer that question?

If we substitute R for x in the criterion, we will get:

(R belongs to R) if and only if (R does not belong to R)...

What is wrong with this?

```--
Torgny
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
```
Received on Fri Nov 30 2007 - 03:00:27 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:14 PST