311
For real though. Tough to get through.
(lemmy.world)
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
That's quite a set of definitions
If the set of definitions contains the word set, does the English language implode in a recursive cascade of paradoxes?
A set can totally contain itself. A better question would be: Consider a set, that contains all sets, that do not contain themself. Would that set contain itself?
It would. Source: I just shaved my beard
Yes, just relax the axiom of comprehension, allow U ∈ U and move on with proving things for fun and profit. No one said that you have to pick axioms that seem natural or intuitive.
Define "the" without using the word "the"... Take that logic! Set and match!
A common English definite article