Appropriate Thread

[springhill]

It's all yours noirua, let's see how long your 'excellent run of posts' goes for.

 

[burglar]

It's all yours noirua, let's see how long your 'excellent run of posts' goes for.

Hey ... I forgot what is appropriate for this thread?!

 

[cynic]

Hey ... I forgot what is appropriate for this thread?!

It's really quite straightforward.

Put simply, anything that's not inappropriate should suffice. Inappropriate posts belong inappropriately to the Inappropriate Thread. This gives rise to the paradox of appropriately posting an inappropriate post to such a thread. If the thread is for inappropriate posts then no appropriate posts belong to it, hence only inappropriately posted inappropriate posts may be posted to the Inappropriate Thread. As such, all other posts must therefore be appropriate and hence would be permissible within an Appropriate Thread. Given that an inappropriate post can never be appropriately posted to the Inappropriate Thread, it must therefore not be a sufficiently inappropriate post. Consequently, every post must by definition be appropriate as no post can ever be appropriately posted to the Inappropriate Thread.

I hope this clarifies matters.

 

[bellenuit]

It's really quite straightforward.

Put simply, anything that's not inappropriate should suffice. Inappropriate posts belong inappropriately to the Inappropriate Thread. This gives rise to the paradox of appropriately posting an inappropriate post to such a thread. If the thread is for inappropriate posts then no appropriate posts belong to it, hence only inappropriately posted inappropriate posts may be posted to the Inappropriate Thread. As such, all other posts must therefore be appropriate and hence would be permissible within an Appropriate Thread. Given that an inappropriate post can never be appropriately posted to the Inappropriate Thread, it must therefore not be a sufficiently inappropriate post. Consequently, every post must by definition be appropriate as no post can ever be appropriately posted to the Inappropriate Thread.

I hope this clarifies matters.

Isn't this similar to Grellings's paradox in set theory that has driven some intelligent minds to insanity.

Grelling's paradox involves dividing all adjectives into two sets: self-descriptive and non-self-descriptive. Words like "polysyllabic", "guttural" and "short" are self-descriptive while "monosyllabic", "illegible" and "abbreviation" are non-self-descriptive. Now which set does "non-self-descriptive" belong to?

 

[cynic]

Isn't this similar to Grellings's paradox in set theory that has driven some intelligent minds to insanity.

Grelling's paradox involves dividing all adjectives into two sets: self-descriptive and non-self-descriptive. Words like "polysyllabic", "guttural" and "short" are self-descriptive while "monosyllabic", "illegible" and "abbreviation" are non-self-descriptive. Now which set does "non-self-descriptive" belong to?

This is the first time I've encountered Grellings' ruminations, thanks for sharing. I certainly do detect certain similarities with Grellings' paradox which (like many others of its ilk) strongly hints at the illusory nature of time. When attempting to categorise the adjective "non-self-descriptive" into one of the two sets, it automatically attempts to describe itself as "non-self-descriptive" creating a recursive cycle where it vacillates between the descriptive and non-descriptive states. This paradox may be resolved by transcending the illusory divisions between past, present and future. Regretfully, many homo sapiens, despite their intelligence have been educated into thinking sequentially thereby depriving them of the necessary perspective to comprehend and resolve this and other pseudo-paradoxical occurrences.

 

[sails]

lol...very empty thread for that which is appropriate!

 

[burglar]

lol...very empty thread for that which is appropriate!

I remember the punchline!

It's only the rest I forget.
Happens to me a lot aound Christmas time!

 

[pixel]

Isn't this similar to Grellings's paradox in set theory that has driven some intelligent minds to insanity.

Grelling's paradox involves dividing all adjectives into two sets: self-descriptive and non-self-descriptive. Words like "polysyllabic", "guttural" and "short" are self-descriptive while "monosyllabic", "illegible" and "abbreviation" are non-self-descriptive. Now which set does "non-self-descriptive" belong to?

Certain concepts may possibly be expressed in language terms, but that doesn't mean the thusly expressed "thing" is real. Who barbers the barber?

Georg Cantor may have become bipolar over it - or maybe he was to begin with and his bipolarity helped him develop the Theory of Sets? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor

How about "the set of all sets that do NOT contain themselves as an element." Is such a set an element of itself? No, it can't be. But if it isn't, the definition requests it to be. q.e.d.

 

[burglar]

... How about "the set of all sets that do NOT contain themselves as an element." Is such a set an element of itself? No, it can't be. But if it isn't, the definition requests it to be. q.e.d.

My brother was a year behind me at school.
I did Latin; he learnt French!
I had old Maths; he studied "Set Theory"!

At least I know what q.e.d. is!!