Paradoxes

[Script Coder]

Question:
Say I have a box, that contains everything (Box A). Therefore, the box must contain itself. Meaning that the box has another on of itself inside it (Box B). But then would Box B then not have to contain box A as well?

[MiiNiPaa]

Therefore, the box must contain itself. Meaning that the box has another on of itself inside it (Box B).

Nope, it contains itself (box A)

[Script Coder]

Nope, it contains itself (box A)

I do not think I explained correctly:
( the symbol => means contains)
A^1 => A^2 => A^3 => .....
Right>

But if A^1=>A^2,
therefore A^2=>A^1

so it contains its parent, or I my logic terribly flawed.

[MiiNiPaa]

std::vector<void*>* x = new std::vector<void*>;
x->push_back(static_cast<void*>(x));
std::vector<void*>* y = static_cast<std::vector<void*>*> x[0];
assert(x == y);

x contains itself.
And your box A will contain itself. Not B, Not A^1, but A.

[z05DSL3A]

Are you saying...

That you have a box that contains everything. If you have two instances of this type of box, box A and box B then box A must contain box B AND box B must contain box A?

[Script Coder]

That you have a box that contains everything. If you have two instances of this type of box, box A and box B then box A must contain box B AND box B must contain box A?

No I am saying that the box will have itself inside of it, and within in that box inside of it, there will be the parent box.

[helios]

This line of reasoning really only becomes a problem when you have a box that contains all the boxes that don't contain themselves.

[MiiNiPaa]

And we got Russel paradox again. I guess it is third time in this thread.

[z05DSL3A]

No I am saying that the box will have itself inside of it, and within in that box inside of it, there will be the parent box.

In that case what constitutes inside the box? If the inside of the box is everything that is not outside the box and everything is inside the box then the box is inside itself with out any trouble.

[MiiNiPaa]

Technically Klein bottle does contains everything in the world including itself (or doesn't conatain anything and can hold nothing it you look at it from another angle)

[chrisname]

MiiNiPaa wrote:

Klein bottle

This reminds me of an SMBC comic: http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2763

[N36fSL3A]

What the hell is that?

[chrisname]

It's a non-orientable surface.

[Catfish4]

I's like a 4D version of a Mobius strip, so we can't physically represent it because our space is 3D, right?

[LB]

Then how do we have them in real life? o_o

[Thumper]

L B wrote:

Then how do we have them in real life? o_o

We don't. We have look-a-likes made from glass and stuff, but they're not actual Klein bottles. For the same reason we don't actually have Gabriels Horns.

[Catfish4]

@ LB: I always thought they were merely an approximation of the real thing.

Edit: added @ for clarity.

[helios]

They're technically projections onto R^3. They can be exactly visualized as the movement of two rings:
http://i43.tinypic.com/2vudjxf.png
Hope it's not too confusing. The red bits are the trails the rings would leave as they move.

[Mitch]

What happens when Pinocchio says, 'My nose will grow now'?

His head explodes...

[N36fSL3A]

I think the world would experience the feedback thingy Hawkings talked about. (I'm too lazy to explain.)