First, define S as the set of all sets that are members of themselves. That is, self-referential. The S set is well defined, and easy to see that it exists.
I disagree: your definition of S is insufficient for me to deduce whether S contains S. It contains exactly the same hole as the definition of R, except that in the case of S it is consistent either way.
More precisely, I read your definition as:
.. and evaluating that for A = S gives the uninformative:S := A \in A => A \in S
.. and analogously:S \in S => S \in S
R \notin R => R \in R
I'd say therefore that these sets are not well-defined unless they additionally specify self-membership:
.. and then everything is simultaneously hunky and dory.S := (A = S | A \in A) => A \in S or S := (A != S & A \in A) => A \in S R := (A = R | A \notin A) => A \in R or R := (A != R & A \notin A) => A \in R
Hugo
In reply to Re^4: BlooP and FlooP and GlooP: Turing Equivalence, Lazy Evaluation, and Perl6
by hv
in thread BlooP and FlooP and GlooP: Turing Equivalence, Lazy Evaluation, and Perl6
by jonadab
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |