Topic: Does a set of all sets contain itself?
Rainbow !DASHqGnDdc started this discussion 15 years ago #16,154
Answer me that, if you can.| Poll option | Votes | Percentage | Graph |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes. | 10 | 91% | |
| No. | 1 | 9% |
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later[^] [v] #278,959
Hi ltamake.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 4 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #278,963
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #278,966
I couldn't figure this one out when I heard it too. Does someone know the answer?
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 7 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #278,969
No, a set is singular thing. Therefore it wouldn't be included in a set.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 28 minutes later, 36 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #278,990
Yes, why not? A is a set of all sets. A is a set. A should be a member of itself.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Rainbow !DASHqGnDdc (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 9 hours later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #279,181
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 22 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #279,183
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 27 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #279,188
i read it and figured it out and then forgot what a set was
Rainbow !DASHqGnDdc (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #279,190
@previous (H)It's a funny word and it lost all meaning to me a while ago because I said it so much.
Anonymous H replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #279,192
Rainbow !DASHqGnDdc (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #279,194
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 5 hours later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #279,239
@279,190 (Rainbow !DASHqGnDdc)
@279,192 (H)
@previous (Rainbow !DASHqGnDdc)
Fun fact: a word seemingly 'losing meaning' after being repeated is called semantic satiation.
@279,192 (H)
@previous (Rainbow !DASHqGnDdc)
Fun fact: a word seemingly 'losing meaning' after being repeated is called semantic satiation.
squeegee !hbZVTk6JYc joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 56 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #279,345
bumping for comic sans
ruby !r1BTUpI1Eo joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 14 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #279,347
@279,239 (G)
I wonder if that's the same phenomenon that makes a word look like it's spelled wrong after you stare at it for too long.
I wonder if that's the same phenomenon that makes a word look like it's spelled wrong after you stare at it for too long.
celeste !hW6clEMVuQ joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 12 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #279,352
@previous (ruby !r1BTUpI1Eo)
it's pretty much the same phenomenon~
words have a meaning and they have a form, when you remove the meaning and just the form is left, words seem strange.
it's pretty much the same phenomenon~
words have a meaning and they have a form, when you remove the meaning and just the form is left, words seem strange.
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #279,355
@279,347 (ruby !r1BTUpI1Eo)
Yes, I presume so.
A few sites mention something called 'orthographic incredulity', which sounds like what you mention.
Yes, I presume so.
A few sites mention something called 'orthographic incredulity', which sounds like what you mention.
(Edited 30 seconds later.)
Anonymous F replied with this 15 years ago, 39 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #279,381
@279,181 (Rainbow !DASHqGnDdc)
Of course, A wouldn't be a set of all sets unless it contained itself. I think you run into problems when you start considering sets that don't contain themselves.
Of course, A wouldn't be a set of all sets unless it contained itself. I think you run into problems when you start considering sets that don't contain themselves.
Rainbow !DASHqGnDdc (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #279,391
Anonymous F replied with this 15 years ago, 33 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #279,415
Rainbow !DASHqGnDdc (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #279,420
@previous (F)
http://www.minichan.org/the_rotten_and_corrupt_universal_set_system
http://www.minichan.org/the_rotten_and_corrupt_universal_set_system
(Edited 8 minutes later.)
Anonymous F replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #279,424
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #279,427
that set would be a superset of all sets and thus isnt one of those sets.
ruby !r1BTUpI1Eo replied with this 15 years ago, 31 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #279,439
@279,355 (G)
Fascinating! I've never heard this term before.
@279,352 (celeste !hW6clEMVuQ)
There are forms of asemic writing that sort of take advantage of this effect, by using nonsense words or calligraphy to give the sensation of reading without actually communicating anything meaningful.
Like "h", maybe.
Fascinating! I've never heard this term before.
@279,352 (celeste !hW6clEMVuQ)
There are forms of asemic writing that sort of take advantage of this effect, by using nonsense words or calligraphy to give the sensation of reading without actually communicating anything meaningful.
Like "h", maybe.