Let «A» be a set and «x» is an element of «A» if and only if «x» is not an element of «x». In other words: «A is a set of all sets that don’t contain themselves as a members».

Why is this a paradox?. Well, imagine that there are several lists of things, let’s take a list named «x», now, you’ll include the list «x» in «A» if and only if «x» doesn’t have «x» in the list. Does «A» belong to the set «A»?.

Suppose that «A» doesn’t belong to «A», then by definition, «A» belongs to «A». This is contradictory.

Now suppose another case, «A» belongs to «A», then, «A» just can’t belongs to «A» by definition of «A» set. Contradiction.

Another way to see this paradox is a classical situation:

In a town there is just one male barber, and he shaves to every man who don’t shaves themselve. And then, we got two situations:

  • If the barber doesn’t shaves himself, then he shaves himself.
  • If the barber shaves himself, then by definition, he doesn’t shave himself.

Pretty cool, right?.


3 responses »

  1. sonny_taz says:

    Esto me recuerda a cierto libro…


  2. vlad says:

    no entendí

  3. David Valdez says:

    ¿que no entendiste? o.O

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s