Alberto said:
> Of course these paradoxes are equivalent to Russel's set-theory
> paradox:
>
> R = { X | X is not a member of X }
> Is R a member of R?
Another fun one is Newcomb's paradox. You're invited to play a game.
There are two boxes. Box one contains USD1,000. Box two contains either
nothing or USD1,000,000. You may not in any way examine the contents of
the boxes without opening them. You may open either box one or both
boxes. You win whatever is in the box or boxes you open. Now, here's
the tricky part: the content of the second box has been chosen some
time before the game starts by a god with perfect prescience, and said
deity has put USD1,000,000 in the box only if he foresees that you
won't open it. Should you open box one or both boxes?
Rich
LSV Implementation Details Left As Exercise
