I'm not quite sure how to respond, because it obviously depends on the subject matter and also - whether we like it or not - how you've grown to interpret "paradox", but I've never considered undecidable problems in computing to be paradoxes at all

to me, a paradox is when you start with a reasonable preposition or whatever, and then the conclusion is not what you'd expect

roughly speaking

Undecidable problems are questions that describe problems in a way that make them appear answerable, but they aren't.

oh, then we disagree on what an undecidable problem is

"An algorithm that can check if a program enters an infinite loop or eventually stops."

right

that's not a paradox

the conclusion is entirely what I expect

Since the only way to know what happens is to actually run the program, the algorithm analyzing the program has to compute the same thing as the program itself. Therefore, analyzing is the same as computing.

So if it enters an infinite loop, the analysis will also loop, and therefore you'll never get an answer.

So the question really was, can we know the final result of a computation without running the computation?

The proof is actually very lengthy.

I'm not sure, should I just repeat myself?

>A paradox is a statement that, despite apparently sound reasoning from true premises, leads to an apparently self-contradictory or logically unacceptable conclusion.

this might appear like a paradox to someone who doesn't know the subject matter, but like I said, the conclusion to this algorithm is entirely expected for me

Probably every paradox can be reworded in a way that makes the contradiction in the question evident.

>Some paradoxes have revealed errors in definitions assumed to be rigorous, and have caused axioms of mathematics and logic to be re-examined. One example is Russell's paradox, which questions whether a "list of all lists that do not contain themselves" would include itself, and showed that attempts to found set theory on the identification of sets with properties or predicates were flawed.[7] Others, such as Curry's paradox, are not yet resolved.

I'd say that provided the wording of the supposed paradox includes the word "arbitrary" or equivalent, it's not actually a paradox

a paradox is always resolved, by my own definition of the word, like I said, so we don't really agree on the basics of the semantics

which is fine, and almost always the case, it just means I should not have said anything at the outset

So "your definition" of paradox says it's always resolved? No unresolved paradoxes?

I'm not sure why you're asking that now, I made this clear in my 2nd sentence

[1:26 AM] folk: to me, a paradox is when you start with a reasonable preposition or whatever, and then the conclusion is not what you'd expect

like I said, this is always a problem when you're discussing on a higher level than "beer", which is why I started my reply with a caveat or two, and laid out my definition immediately

Crime Rates in Sweden

I think you mean cultural enrichment rates in Sweden, you bigot

How long until filing police reports becomes a hate crime?

it already is in the UK

<:swedenistan:382988769298481152>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bid3EfCobEM

another bomb ass dank ass video by 1791L

this one even better than the usual

good lord, I guess Laurier issued a statement about how they "unequivocally" support freedom of expression. Every bit of damage control they've attempted just makes them look more pathetic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtH_HHZ0XTQ&feature=youtu.be

You know what's really missing? A statement from the Canadian Human Rights Commission fessing up that indeed, even talking about it is "violence." Just so everyone can wake the fuck up and chop some heads off.

I love the comments on the video saying Laurier should invite Peterson. YES. DO IT.

Can someone tell me why Democrats are going into bat for John Conyers / Al Franken?

I mean I tend to find the pro-Roy Moore argument of 'well we need to defend him otherwise a Democrat will take his seat' kinda skeevy in of itself, but... If Conyers / Franken got the boot, they'd be overwhelmingly likely to be replaced by... *another Democrat*

Also, speaking of Moore, it kinda fucks the Dems argument against him if they behave exactly the same way that (some) Reps are behaving in regards to defending Moore

Tribalism.

dummyism