more on this theme | more from this thinker
Full Idea
Richard: φ(x) is 'x is a definable real number between 0 and 1' and ψ(x) is 'x is definable'. We can define a real by diagonalization so that it is not in x. It is and isn't in the set of reals.
Gist of Idea
By diagonalization we can define a real number that isn't in the definable set of reals
Source
Graham Priest (The Structure of Paradoxes of Self-Reference [1994], §3)
Book Ref
-: 'Mind' [-], p.29
A Reaction
[this isn't fully clear here because it is compressed]
| 13366 | The least ordinal greater than the set of all ordinals is both one of them and not one of them [Priest,G] |
| 13367 | The next set up in the hierarchy of sets seems to be both a member and not a member of it [Priest,G] |
| 13368 | The 'least indefinable ordinal' is defined by that very phrase [Priest,G] |
| 13370 | 'x is a natural number definable in less than 19 words' leads to contradiction [Priest,G] |
| 13369 | By diagonalization we can define a real number that isn't in the definable set of reals [Priest,G] |
| 13371 | If you know that a sentence is not one of the known sentences, you know its truth [Priest,G] |
| 13372 | There are Liar Pairs, and Liar Chains, which fit the same pattern as the basic Liar [Priest,G] |
| 13373 | Typically, paradoxes are dealt with by dividing them into two groups, but the division is wrong [Priest,G] |