Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!mimsy!oddjob!gargoyle!ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!bsu-cs!dhesi
From: dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi)
Newsgroups: sci.math,sci.math.symbolic,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Russell's set of sets which... paradox
Message-ID: <918@bsu-cs.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 3-Aug-87 18:28:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: bsu-cs.918
Posted: Mon Aug  3 18:28:00 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 4-Aug-87 06:42:13 EDT
References: <1404@cullvax.UUCP> <902@bsu-cs.UUCP> <4901@j.cc.purdue.edu>
Reply-To: dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi)
Organization: CS Dept, Ball St U, Muncie, Indiana
Lines: 20
Xref: mnetor sci.math:1736 sci.math.symbolic:116 sci.philosophy.tech:344

In article <4901@j.cc.purdue.edu> ags@j.cc.purdue.edu.UUCP (Dave Seaman) writes:
[continuing a discussion of a paradox:]

>The stone paradox can be formulated as follows:  Assume x is an omnipotent
>being.  Let P(x) be the statement, "x can make a stone so big that x can't
>lift it."  Is P(x) true, or is it false?  A little thought shows that it is
>neither.
>
>What do we conclude from the contradiction?  There must be something wrong
>with the original assumption that there exists an omnipotent being.
>Therefore no such being can exist.

Let me throw this at you:  

     Omnipotent Being n. A being with the power to invalidate any or
     all possible sets of axioms.

Now try again.
-- 
Rahul Dhesi         UUCP:  {ihnp4,seismo}!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi