logic

found this course http://www.filozofia.uw.edu.pl/kpaprzycka/Publ/xLogicSelfTaught.html

working through it, have so far made it to unit 3 pg 27. want to complete the rest soon.

missing piece meets big O

quotes

life like a journey isn't abt reaching the destination. make the most off it while it lasts. -amar (27june2008;9.46pm)

polictics

these r some of the comments that have cracked me up. u'll know whom they're abt if u've been following the 2008 elections. enjoy.

• Old Man's yelling at clouds again.
• Great speech from a guy who obviously doesn't need a teleprompter to string more than two sentences together! Loved his response to McCain's charge about visiting Iraq. Give that old man a US map and get out his flack jacket. He's got some more markets to visit.

philosophy

russell's paradox: can someone help me see/understand the paradox?

let's say r is a set consisting of members (physical beings) crystal, roark, dominique. in set languate, r={crystal, roark, dominique}.

i'm stumped trying to even ask the question, is the group consisting of crystal, roark, dominique a member of the group consisting of crystal, roark, dominique? is there any physical equivalence to this seemingly rhetorical Q?

the original set r consists of three individuals, physical beings. now, that is simple and straightforward. the set is an abstract entity. does it make sense to even ask, whether an abstract entity, in this case the set r, is a member of the set which is a collection of individual physical beings?

doesn't the very definition of the set r, exclude those entities or members who r not physical beings?