{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
3/23/2015 2:26:33 AM
13
-
>implying there ever could be a set of all sets outside of semantics.
-
>Implying that there's any kind of problem with a struct or object containing itself.
-
Please explain
-
Being animals, we evolved in Euclidian space. This means we evolved a bunch of preconceptions that colour our thoughts, even when thinking about abstract things like sets. In Euclidian space, a container is made of matter that has to be in a specific place, so a container obviously can't contain itself. In thinking about sets, we think of containers. That set notation goes { { ... }, { ... }, {} } is evidence of this. But computers didn't evolve in Euclidian space. To a computer, "contains" is just another abstract relationship, like "likes", or "smells like". Just as a person could like himself, or smell like himself, there's no inherent contradiction when a set "contains" itself.
-
My whole point is that you can't take the statements out of the contexts they're found in. Semantically it's a statement that makes sense, 'a set that contains itself', but try and actually figure out what it means in terms of the physical world and it just doesn't make any sort of sense whatsoever. Yes it also works as an abstract computer algorithm, but translate that into the material world and it stops making sense almost immediately..
-
Also, sets [i]are[/i] abstract concepts from informatics, and [i]are not[/i] physical objects in the physical world.
-
So you've got a statement that baffles humans, but not robots, and you're going to try to baffle a robot with it?
-
It only doesn't baffle robots because when you give it to the robot it dumbs the statement down.
-
No it doesn't, it's just better at recursion than you are.
-
It goes from being confined by the laws of physical objects when a human thinks of it, to those of abstract non-material relationships when a robot does; I'd call that a dumbing down.
-
Sets are not physical objects. It's the human (that hasn't studied Math or Informatics) that's constrained by a way of thinking rooted in physical objects, which again sets are not.
-
A set of all sets, or a set that contains itself to make it simpler, could be any function you make that includes itself at some point. It will loop infinitely, running itself over and over, until there is no memory left to run it
-
Yes...no...wa-///ERROR\\\
