|
Which did come first... (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kamikaze Badger
Would a set of all sets contain itself? |
Yes. |
|
|
| Nell |
| well a egg cant hatch unless its sat on/kept warm, then it has to be fed etc, so the chicken came first. |
|
|
| tu_face |
| how much wood would a wood-chuck chuck, if a wood-chuck could chuck wood? |
|
|
| Nell |
| quote: | Originally posted by tu_face
how much wood would a wood-chuck chuck, if a wood-chuck could chuck wood? |
teach one to chuck wood, then you'll have your answer. |
|
|
| tu_face |
| any ideas on where my nearest wood-chuck distributor is..? |
|
|
| Chris d(-_-)b |
I believe some creature close to the chicken genotype evolved to a unstable metaphase. The phenotype of this creature evolved to something close to a chicken. In million years, the genotype was modified and soon it started to resamble a chicken. Now, since the new genotype always had to take characterics through the first stadium of a new individual; the egg, the first real fully evolved chicken was born out of an egg. This leads to our conclusion. The egg wasn't laid by a chicken but rather something close to it. A mutation during the chomosomal duplication of the X or Y chroms lead to the evolvation of the chicken genotype as we know it today.
So the egg came first. |
|
|
| Cloudburst |
The egg rolled over and light a cigarette. The chicken looked sourly at him.
-Well, at least we know who came first...
:rolleyes: |
|
|
| Absolut_Vodka |
| for ppl who dont do bio, genotype is the genetic code, and the phenotype is the actual physical appearance coded by the genes. |
|
|
| LibMe |
| i think chicken was first, maybe evolution or sumthing like that |
|
|
| Flyboy217 |
Clearly the egg came first. Dinosaurs were around before chickens, and they hatched from eggs. As for chickens vs. chicken eggs, it depends entirely on whether you define "chicken egg" to be an egg hatched by a chicken, or one that hatches a chicken. If the former, then the chicken came first by definition. If the latter, then the chicken egg came first by definition.
There is no mystery, and no paradox. The point that apparently confuses everyone is that a chicken egg does not have to meet both criteria, but presumably should meet at least one. Once it is well-defined, the problem disappears immediately.
| quote: | Originally posted by Kamikaze Badger
Now, for the next question:
Would a set of all sets contain itself? |
To answer your question, yes. The set of all sets does contain itself. Basic set theory.
Perhaps you mean "does the set of all sets that do not contain themselves, contain itself." This is known as Russell's paradox, and it's not answerable. |
|
|
| Noisician |
| quote: | Originally posted by Flyboy217
To answer your question, yes. The set of all sets does contain itself. Basic set theory.
|
well, if you want to get all technical about that, then the answer really depends on which set theory you base your explanation upon. for example, in zermelo-fraenkel set theory (the one adopted almost universally), the expression "set of all sets" makes no sense whatsoever because in zf such a thing simply does not exist. there's only the CLASS of all sets, and it actually happens to be a proper class (i.e. it's NOT a set). therefore, it cannot be a member of itself because a proper class is NOT an object. this is a direct consequence of the axiom of separation (aka axiom of subsets). for the same reason the entire universe of discourse cannot possibly be a set. it's a proper class as well. and for that matter, we can also prove that the class of all ordinals is not a set. etc. |
|
|
| DJ Mikey Mike |
| quote: | Originally posted by LibMe
i think chicken was first, maybe evolution or sumthing like that |
Wow, you really know your ! :eek:
Oh, and the egg came first. |
|
|
|
|
