What are some classic examples of the paradox theory?

Regarding the theory of paradoxes, the classic example is the time bomb, because this paradox is one of the more famous ten paradoxes, I don't know the specific situation, because I only saw it a long time ago, and now it seems that I can't find a subject about this anymore. <>

Even Edison and Einstein have some classic examples of refuting theories, and I think these examples can fully explain these points of view and fully explain this principle, so I think they are very powerful people, and they are worth learning from him. And in the rest of our lives, we also have to learn to think about problems constantly. <>

Several paradoxes of Zeno, the barber's paradox, the Barnach Tusky paradox, the Grand Lodge paradox, the false positive paradox, the impossibility paradox, the Keno paradox, the envelope paradox, the Russell paradox, the liar's paradox, the Montihall problem, the problem of the three prisoners.

A movie similar to Angel Amelie's style, I think. In fact, the themes of youthful movies are almost the same, so there is no better recommendation, because I think this movie itself is very good, and the recommendation of the same type is those steps, but I don't think it's as good as this, I still prefer this step. <>

There are many classic examples of paradox theory, for example, people often say that the earth is the center, and the solar system and the universe revolve around the earth, in fact, this statement has been disproved a long time ago, but at that time it was really very convincing, and it also lasted for a long time, almost thousands of years were considered this theory, but later it was called a paradox.

There are many classic examples of this theory, for example, a barber put up a sign: I only give haircuts to those in the village who don't give themselves haircuts, so at this time someone asked her, then do you give yourself a haircut? He was speechless.

This theory can be called an inverse or a contradiction. The meaning of this word is very rich.

If you want to recommend movies of this style, then I have a few options, such as "Emily's Happy Life" and "Angel's Love", both of which are similar in style to this movie, and the plot is similar, so the difference is the content of the character settings and lines, so these movies are very similar, but they look very good, so it's worth watching.

Angel Amelie, such a movie with a similar style and this killer is not too cold, I think this killer is not too cold, this movie is very good, this kind of plot promotion is described very well, and it is also vividly shown in the movie, so in this kind of movie style will be very good, and the two of them will be very good if their styles are similar.

Audrey Hepburn's Roman Summer, Audrey Hepburn is very good-looking in it, and both movies are more retro, Angel Amelie is a little cute, and Roman Holiday is also very cute, Audrey Hepburn plays a princess who sneaks away to play, and then meets the person she likes but can't be together.

There are many theories of Chamberlain in life, the most famous of which is Hawking's theory of time. Like if you went back in time and killed your great-grandfather, would there still be you now? The answer is yes, because it's a very unsolvable question.

And not as often imagined.

Russell's paradox: Let s be made up of everything that does not belong to itself, i.e., "s=".

So the question is: Is it true that S belongs to S? First, if s belongs to s, it does not meet x s, then s does not belong to s; Second, if s does not belong to s, then x s is in line with s and s belongs to s.

The liar's paradox, also known as the liar's paradox.

In the 6th century B.C., the Cretan philosopher Epiminides famously said, "My words are false." The phrase is famous because it has no answer.

For if this statement of Epiminides is true, it does not correspond to the saying "This word of mine is false", then this statement is false; If this sentence is false, then it is in line with the sentence "This sentence of mine is false", then this sentence is true.

Therefore there is no solution to this sentence.

This is a paradox caused by self-referentiality.

The Plato-Socratic paradox.

Plato said, "Socrates' next sentence is wrong".

Socrates said, "Plato was right. "No matter which sentence you assume is true, the other sentence will contradict it.

Neither sentence is self-interpreting, but as a whole, it also constitutes the liar's Senbi paradox.

Achilles' paradox.

In the 5th century BCE, Zeno published the famous Achilles paradox: he proposed that the turtle should start 1,000 meters in front of Achilles, and assumed that Achilles would be 10 times faster than the tortoise.

When the race starts, Achilles runs 1,000 meters, and if the time is t, the turtle is 100 meters ahead of him; When Achilles finished the next 100 meters, he took time t 10 and the turtle was still 10 meters ahead of him.

When Achilles finished the next 10 meters, he took t 100, and the turtle was still 1 meter ...... ahead of himZeno believes that Achilles will be able to keep closing in on the tortoise, but will never be able to catch up with it.

Maternal grandmother paradox.

If a person really "went back in time" and killed his own grandmother before she became pregnant with his mother, would the time traveler himself still exist? The question is obvious, without his maternal grandmother there would be no his mother, without his mother there would be no him, without him, how could he "go back in time" and kill his own maternal grandmother before his maternal grandmother conceived his mother.

If he is lying, then "I am lying" is a lie, and therefore he is telling the truth; But if this is the truth, he is lying again. Contradictions are inevitable.

If event A occurs, then non-a is derived, and non-a occurs, a is derived, which is a paradoxical infinite logical loop.

In the village of Savile, the barber hung up a sign: "I only give haircuts to all those in the village who don't give themselves a haircut." "Someone asked him:

Do you give yourself a haircut? The barber was speechless. This is a paradoxical reasoning:

If the barber doesn't give himself a haircut, he belongs to the category of people on the signboard. There is a word that he should give himself a haircut. On the other hand, if the barber gives himself a haircut, according to the signboard, he only gives a haircut to people in the village who don't give him a haircut, and he can't give himself a haircut.

r is a collection of all collections that do not contain themselves. People likewise ask, "Does r contain or does r itself?" "If it does not contain, by the definition of r, r should belong to r. If R contains itself, R does not belong to R.

A library has compiled a book name dictionary that lists all the books in the library that do not have their own titles. So does it list its own book titles?

There is no absolute truth in the world" We don't know if the phrase itself is "absolute truth."

In Zeno's view, since the arrow has an instantaneous position at each moment of its flight, it is no different from not moving in this position. So, is the sum of infinite resting positions equal motion? Or is the infinitely repetitive stillness a motion?

There is a similar saying in ancient China.

A student asked his Greek teacher, "What is sophistry?" The teacher asked rhetorically

There are two people, A and B, A is very clean and B is very dirty. If you ask them to bathe, who among them will wash? There are four possibilities here, one is the nail wash, because he has the habit of loving cleanliness; the second is to baptize, because he needs it; The third is that both of them wash, one because of habit, the other because of need; Fourth, neither of them washed, because dirty people do not have the habit of bathing, and clean people do not need to wash.

It's a self-justifying phrase. It also has four explanations: one is that "the father is there, and the mother dies first"; the second is "the father dies before the mother"; the third is that if the parents are alive, it can be interpreted as the future; Fourth, even if both parents died, it can be interpreted as "the mother died when the father was there."

Or "The father died before the mother." "It's really a good match.

This proposition is very similar to "white horses are not horses", although the method and purpose of the argument are different. Xunzi classified the ink debate of "killing thieves and not killing" into the sophistry of "confused by the use of names to mess with names". Xunzi believes that in terms of extension, the category of "people" includes the category of "theft".

Therefore, when we say "thief", we mean that we are also "human"; Killing a "thief" is also killing.

There is a famous saying: "What I am saying now is a lie".

Paradoxical stories are also examples of paradox:

There was a man who sold both spears and shields. He boasted first that his shield was the strongest, and that nothing could pierce it; Then he boasted that his spear was the sharpest, and that it could pierce anything. Someone else asked him:

What would happen if he stabbed his shield with his spear, he could not answer, because the two contradicted each other. This is a proposition that can neither be true nor false at the same time. If there is a contradiction in the premise, it is impossible to draw conclusions.

There is also a paradox about the barber.

In the village of Savile, the barber hung up a sign: "I only give haircuts to all those in the village who don't give themselves a haircut." Someone asked him, "Do you give yourself a haircut?" The barber was speechless.

Someone can give themselves a haircut! This is not surprising. Convincingly, you grab yourself with your hands and lift yourself up.

I've heard some examples from the teacher, and one of them is like this: Take the classroom as an example, if you walk from one end of the classroom to the other end of the classroom, you can get there, okay, OK, this is established. But in mathematics, it has been suggested that if you want to go to the other end of the classroom, you have to walk half of the distance, to walk the remaining half, you have to walk another half of the half, and so on, and so on, and the conclusion is that you can get to the other end of the classroom endlessly but never get there.