Paradoxes?

[stille_nacht]

Dunno i just feel like making a list:
impossible shapes (see penrose triangle, devils fork, etc.)

does a set of all sets contain itself?

the following statement is true. the previous statement is false

new mission: decline this mission.

this statement is false.

[BOgre]

I once created a box that contained a parallel universe (we'll call it Universe A) and, in a simultaneous blunder, the parallel me created a box containing OUR universe (also known as The Mongooses, yeah, The Fighting Mongooses).

[BOgre]

What can possibly be better than True Happiness? Well, Nothing is better than True Happiness, but then, a Little Happiness is better than Nothing, so A Little Happiness is better than True Happiness.

[Arnhelm]

Can a time traveller kill his/her own father prior to the time traveller's conception.

[BOgre]

Can a time traveller kill his/her own father prior to the time traveller's conception.

Yes, he could, IF time travel into the past were possible without breaking an infinite entropy barrier. Time travel into the past is logically impossible, and self contradictory. That in itself makes time travel into the future at least Relatively/Relativistically impossible as well. Except that Relativity proves time travel into the future to be mathematically possible... Time Travel is it's own paradox. An enigma wrapped in a riddle wrapped in a chimmichanga.

[BruceTheHoon]

impossible shapes (see penrose triangle, devils fork, etc.)

does a set of all sets contain itself?

That by itself is not really a paradox. Saying that such set does contain itself doesn't get you in a contradictive position.
What about a set containing all sets, that does not include themselves?

[Quarterling]

EDIT: Nevermind, too late, need to get some sleep so I can actually start thinking again.

[Arnhelm]

Yes, he could, IF time travel into the past were possible without breaking an infinite entropy barrier. Time travel into the past is logically impossible, and self contradictory. That in itself makes time travel into the future at least Relatively/Relativistically impossible as well. Except that Relativity proves time travel into the future to be mathematically possible... Time Travel is it's own paradox. An enigma wrapped in a riddle wrapped in a chimmichanga.

Oh great... Now I'm hungry!

[justhavinfun]

Ouch, ouch ouch. Thanks for the headache. Just woke up and read this thread. No caffine so brain hadn't even had time to get jump started yet. Thanks guys.

[Zeruell]

Nice try, but my head was built with paradox-absorbing crumple zones!

[stille_nacht]

That by itself is not really a paradox. Saying that such set does contain itself doesn't get you in a contradictive position.
What about a set containing all sets, that does not include themselves?

it does contain a contradiction (or rather an impossibility). a set of all sets necessarily includes all sets, which means that when you create the set, it includes itself, but since it now includes itself and all other sets, it is a different set, which it must then include, ad infinitum.

not to mention that sets by definition are composed of smaller elements, meaning it it is a contradiction for the set to include itself, because that would make it bigger than itself.

[Nysrock]

Three students checked into a hotel and paid the clerk $30 for a room ($10 each). When the hotel manager returned, he noticed that the clerk had incorrectly charged $30 instead of $25 for the room. The manager told the clerk to return $5 to the students. The clerk, knowing that the students would not be able to divide $5 evenly, decided to keep $2 and to give them only $3.

The students were very happy because they paid only $27 for the room ($9 each). However, if they paid $27 and the clerk kept $2, that adds up to $29. What happened to the other Dollar?

[stille_nacht]

Three students checked into a hotel and paid the clerk $30 for a room ($10 each). When the hotel manager returned, he noticed that the clerk had incorrectly charged $30 instead of $25 for the room. The manager told the clerk to return $5 to the students. The clerk, knowing that the students would not be able to divide $5 evenly, decided to keep $2 and to give them only $3.

The students were very happy because they paid only $27 for the room ($9 each). However, if they paid $27 and the clerk kept $2, that adds up to $29. What happened to the other Dollar?

heh, tricksty, its because the clerk kept 2, that is the part of 27 payed to the clerk, the 3 dollars refunded is what you actually subtract. not a paradox, thats a misdirection :P

[BitkaCK2]

I put $20 in a box.
You put $20 in the same box.
I sell you the box for $30.
We each walk away happy with a $10 profit.

bitkaCK2