can you explain the paradox?
338688
I'm not certain of the context, but, taken literally, the logic follows... \n\n...as the child develops into the man, the child, or boy, in a sense, gives "birth" or gives way to the man, and thus is the origin or "father" or the man.
85739
somebody help me with this! i think i just lost point for trying to understand the question.
568950
I don't understand the question?
728265
I don't understand, would you explain it again?
597619
well that last example doesnt work...they divide by zero and try to let it slip.\n\nThings like Russells paradox messed with the mathematical world for a while.  This paradox deals with sets.\n\nIt says that we have a set R, R is the set of all sets that are not members of themselves.  This means that R  is neither a member of itself nor not a member of itself.\n\nThis is pretty neat, and it was a huge problem with set theory.  It was solved by saying that all sets are members of a universe.  I still claim that its a sticky area.\n\nhope this is what you were looking for.\n\nMatttlocke
839737
The paradox is : Let M be "the set of all sets that do not contain themselves as members". Formally: A is an element of M if and only if A is not an element of A.
1033527
No...that is why it is called a paradox. A paradox is a word used to explain what can't be explained with a "yes" or a "no" or a definite repeatable solution(s) because there is always the "yeah but"...so as soon as one comes up with a solution there seems to be someone who can say (prove) the opposite.
556102
The twin paradox, sometimes called the "clock paradox", stems from Paul Langevin's 1911 thought experiment in special relativity: one of two twin brothers undertakes a long space journey with a high-speed rocket at almost the speed of light, while the other twin remains on Earth. When the traveler returns to Earth, he is younger than the twin who stayed put. Or, as first stated by Albert Einstein (1911):\n\nOrigin of the Paradox\nThe strange result of twins of different physical age was not the central problem of the "twin paradox". As early as 1905, Einstein predicts that a clock which is moved away and brought back, will lag behind on stationary clocks. Einstein calls that result "peculiar", but the calculation is straightforward and the example is not presented as paradoxical, despite his suggestion in the introduction of the same paper that only relative motion between objects should matter.\n\nIn 1911, Langevin discusses the evolution of the concepts of space and time in physics and presents the principal aspects of special relativity. He suggests that special relativity implies the existence of a stationary ether and states: "Every change of speed, every acceleration, has an absolute sense". To stress this fact he provides several examples such as that accelerated electric charges emit electromagnetic radiation. He proceeds with a thought experiment similar to the specific example above. Langevin next explains the different aging of the twins: "Only the traveller has undergone an acceleration that changed the direction of his velocity." According to Langevin, acceleration is here "absolute", in the sense that it is the cause of the asymmetry (and not of the aging itself). Also in this discussion there seems nothing paradoxical about it.\n\nHowever, it was Einstein's objective to show that all motion is "relative", and he thought to have reached that objective with General relativity. Thus he stated in 1916, in his introduction to that theory: "The laws of physics must be of such a nature that they apply to reference systems in any kind of motion" (including accelerated motion). And he concluded about two relatively accelerated systems K and K': "From the physical standpoint, the assumption readily suggests itself that the systems K and K' may both with equal right be looked upon as "stationary", that is to say, they have an equal title as systems of reference for the physical description of phenomena." In other words, all observers are equivalent, and no particular frame of reference is privileged.\n\nThe perception of paradox is rooted in a misunderstanding of the meaning of equivalent frames in relativity and therefore arises in both SR and GR. The Principle of Relativity states that the mathematical forms of the laws of physics – say, mechanics and electrodynamics — are identical in all frames of reference independent of their relative motion; i.e., all frames are equivalent in this restricted but important sense that the laws of physics are invariant from one frame to another, whether the frames are accelerating or not. In the twin problem, although the respective frames are equivalent in this sense, they are not dynamically symmetric since only the traveling twin experiences acceleration. However, if one assumes that the frames of the traveling and stay-at-home twin are dynamically symmetric and confuses dynamic symmetry with equivalence (and perhaps, additionally, falsely infers equivalence to mean identical calculations in all frames), one erroneously concludes the same result for each twin's time dilation as calculated by the other twin; i.e., one expects the traveler upon return, to have aged more and less than his twin – which is clearly impossible. In this connection, it is important to understand that relativity does not claim that all observers make identical measurements when observi
1123895
You'll need to restate that problem.\nIt's not solvable as written.
1005289
You have just described the concept of temporal paradox.  This is a central theme in time travel science fiction.  If you travel back in time and kill your grandfather, how then can you have ever existed?  Well, the most common explanation is that we exist in a "multiverse" where many realities coexist simulaneously, and when you "travel in time" you actually traverse to a different reality where your actions have no bearing or effect on the reality that you came from.  Each new change, choice, or action spawns a new reality...
422460
please explain this question.
166351
"A seemingly contradictory statement that may nonetheless be true; an assertion that is essentially self-contradictory, though based on a valid deduction from acceptable premises."\n\nBut what all that confusing nonsense means is that when something is a paradox, you wonder how it can be possible when it seems that it should be impossible. Or saying something that is true, and yet seems false. \n\nFor example, "The ice was so cold that it burned." Touching a cold surface should, scientifically, make you feel cold, as you are losing warmth by touching it. However, extremely cold objects/substances are described as "burning." \n\nOr, try a complicated scenario as a paradox: you are standing in the exact center of a free-floating sheet of ice in the middle of a pond during a snow storm. If you move, the platform will tip, and you will fall and freeze to death in the icy water. However, if you don't move, your body will freeze nonetheless. Often referred to as a "catch-22."\n\nAnother statement that is a paradox: suppose you were to say, I am from the island of Nor. Everyone on Nor is a liar.  Therefore, if you are telling the truth, you are lying. If you are lying, then you are telling the truth.\n\nOr a classic: This statement is false. Is it true, or is it false? \n\nHope this helps.
992745
This is Zeno's paradox... Possible resolutions include: (a) the universe is NOT actually continuous but composed of discrete quanta therefore any distance actually cannot be cut in half as anything other than a mental exercise, (b) calculus: if distance can be broken into infinitely subdivisible parcels, so can time.  The way that a distance is traversed is the same way that time is traversed and so... integrating over an infinite number of distance segments can be easily done with an infinite number of (infinitesimal) time intervals.
1158120
Wow.\n\nA few people here know what they're talking about.  A few.  Very few.\n\nMost of these responses are absolutely hilarious.  Most of them are from people trying to sound smart, in which case they do NOT.  Other cases are from kids with big imaginations, with "Anything is possible!"\n\nEinstein was brilliant, no question.  But all great scientists are capable of mistakes, and Einstein was no exception.\n\nHis theory on time travel was based on the speed of light and the "paradox" in which light travels at a fixed rate of speed.  This is true; light moves at 186,000 mps no matter what conditions are in place.\n\nHis theory's flaw is accounted to the fact that light has NO mass.  Light, in it's fixed movement, cannot be compared to any living organism (which is made up of mass) or any other object.  Any object made up of mass (for example, a human being, or any kind of lightspeed-capable rocket ship) does NOT have a fixed speed; therefore the velocity equation paradox that Einstein based his theory on does not apply to them.\n\nThis is all I want to say tonight.  Anyone who understands his theories will understand what I've said here, so think about my statements.  Let me know what you think (again, only those of you who understand what Einstein's theories were all about), as I'm no expert on relativity.  Like everyone else posting on a Yahoo answers forum about Albert Einstein and his theories on time travel, I'm just a fan.  Don't act like any of us are any more.\nEveryone else:  Please don't worry about it.\n\nAlthough I am skeptical by nature, like any smart person, it is NOT my goal to bash the idea of time travel.  After I spotted the flaw in Einstein's theory I presented it to many professionals in the field (or the few that I know, anyway) and have so far received very positive feedback.  I searched online as well and have discovered that others seem to have come up with the same idea, or similar.  Let me know what you think about the whole deal.\n\nBeing proven wrong only makes you smarter.
698194
The time paradox is that brought about by one individual moving at near the speed of light through space and having the relative time value of their physical existence being less than that of a person not moving at near the same speed.\n\nThe reason this exists is due to mass acceleration causing the frequency of energy at right angles of travel becoming less, and this same energy being transferred to direction of travel.  As energy has less potential at right angles of travel, time becomes condensed in one direction.  At the speed of light time would cease to exist because it all would be in one direction only.\n\nTime requires mass to exist.  It requires three dimensions.  When two of these dimensions cease to exist, time ceases to exist.\n\nLastly, were you to consider the physics trilogy, E = mc2, m = E/c2, and c2 = E/m you would note that the only constant value of these equations is that of c2.  This is what physical time is.  It is physical time.  Physical time is the basis of these three equations and it is what we are composed of.  It is for this reason that all physical existence moves from the present to the past at exactly the same rate.\n\nThere is no shortcut through physical time.  It is impossible for mankind to form any manner of time travel due to all events having ever occured, or shall occur, existing only in present time.
170402
Russell's paradox (two Ls in his name) was a paradox found by Betrand Russell, which showed that 'naive set theory' was contradictory.\n\nBasically, Russell says: Define a set D which consists of all sets which do not contain themselves.  The paradox is that we cannot decide whether D is a member of itself.  If it is a member of itself, then it isn't, and if it isn't, then it is.\n\nThe paradox has led to much more complicated axioms for set theory than one would initially think was necessary.\n\nThis paradox is related to the 'diagonal proofs' that show there are different sizes of infinity and prove Goedel's imcompleteness theorem.
154455
Huh? Could you please explain?