2
$\begingroup$

I'm currently reading "The Blind Spot" by J.Y.Girard, and came across this passage about diagonalization:

enter image description here

enter image description here

Is this way of describing diagonal arguments in general legitimate? If not is there another formal way to describe every diagonal argument?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ BTW I have tried presenting Russell's "paradox" to people who are strongly non-mathematical by saying that it is illogical to assert the existence of a widget that dibbles all widgets that do not dibble themselves, and does not dibble any widget that dibbles itself....... The ancient Greeks knew of the Barber Paradox: The barber that shaves all those and only those, who do not shave themselves. $\endgroup$ – DanielWainfleet May 30 '17 at 6:46
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You can see: Haim Gaifman, Naming and Diagonalization: from Cantor to Godel to Kleene. $\endgroup$ – Mauro ALLEGRANZA May 30 '17 at 12:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Also: Raymond Smullyan, Diagonalization and Self-Reference, Oxford UP (1994) $\endgroup$ – Mauro ALLEGRANZA May 30 '17 at 12:40

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.