How come a paradox in set theory that broke the whole thing apart resulted in merely changing the definition of a set to handwave away the issue, but the exact same problem in computer science or mathematical logic is taken seriously?
If we can make "a set cannot contain itself" a thing, why can't we make "a program to solve the halting problem cannot analyze itself" a thing?
Follow

@miria The same applies to Godel's incompleteness theorem. Why would a logical system be incomplete due to its inability to incorporate nonsensical self-referencing paradoxes?

Sign in to participate in the conversation
CleverLibre Social

CleverLibre Social is an inclusive social instance for open discussion, learning, and community.
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.