This is the Thread About All Threads Which Are Not About Themselves.
A)If this thread is NOT about Itself, then it IS a member of the set of all Threads Which Are Not About Themselves.
B) If this thread IS about Itself, then it is NOT included in the set of all Threads That Are Not About Themselves.
THEREFORE:
A1) IF this thread is NOT about Itself, then it IS a member of the set of threads that it is about.
A2) If this thread is about itself then it is not about itself.
B1) IF this thread IS about Itself, then it is NOT a member of the set of threads that it is about.
B2) If this thread is not about itself then it is about itself.
Is this thread about itself?
I'm very confused
pime taradox
penis.jpg
purple
Because you touch yourself at night.
This thread is quite obviously about itself, regardless of whether it claims to be or not. It's like making a thread titled "I like apples" then spending 1000 posts discussing oranges.
>>10
No. If this thread is about itself, then it isn't one of the "threads not about themselves" which this thread claims to be about.
But is this thread really about those threads? I don't see much discussion of them, even >>1 spends most of his time talking about this thread.
If this isn't a discussion of this thread, I don't know what is.
Is this Bertrand Russel's set theory applied to threads?
I don't know what that is but apparently it makes a similar amount of sense as this does.
OP here,
You got it. It's Russell's Paradox applied to 4-ch threads.
Some bits from wiki by way of explanation:
----------------------------------------------------------
There are some versions of this paradox that are closer to real-life situations and may be easier to understand for non-logicians. For example, the Barber paradox supposes a barber who shaves men if and only if they do not shave themselves. When one thinks about whether the barber should shave himself or not, the paradox begins to emerge.
Applications and related topics
The Barber paradox, in addition to leading to a tidier set theory, has been used twice more with great success: Kurt Gödel proved his incompleteness theorem by formalizing the paradox, and Turing proved the undecidability of the Halting problem (and with that the Entscheidungsproblem) by using the same trick.
Russell-like paradoxes
As illustrated above for the Barber paradox, Russell's paradox is not hard to extend. Take:
* A transitive verb <V>, that
* can be applied to its substantive form.Form the sentence:
The <V>er that <V>s all (and only those) who don't <V> themselves,Sometimes the "all" is replaced by "all <V>ers".
An example would be "paint":
The painter that paints all (and only those) that don't paint themselves.or "elect"
The elector (representative), that elects all that don't elect themselves. Link:
>But is this thread really about those threads? I don't see much discussion of them, even >>1 spends most of his time talking about this thread.
I agree that this thread may be about itself, I only point out that that implies that this thread isn't about itself.
From >>1
>A2) If this thread is about itself then it is not about itself.
Unless you think there's a mistake in >>1's logic?
>Unless you think there's a mistake in >>1's logic?
Not the logic, but rather the premise -- that this thread is about threads that aren't about themselves. If this thread is about itself, and therefore isn't in the set of threads not discussing themselves, then this thread isn't about the set of threads that don't discuss themselves.
I recognized the Russel's Paradox reference (though I didn't remember the name,) but I don't think it extends properly to this particular example.