An interesting paradox in Set Theory. One of the ways of proving this is to consider books which contain their title in their pages, and books which do not. |

An interesting paradox in set theory. One of the ways of proving this is to consider books which contain their title in their pages, and books which do not. |

# all the letters in the 'title' are contained in the rest of the (part) stations; # some of the letters of the 'title' are contained in the rest of the (part) stations; # none of the letters of the 'title' are contained in the rest of the (part) stations. |

# All the letters in the 'title' are contained in the rest of the (part) stations. # Some of the letters of the 'title' are contained in the rest of the (part) stations. # None of the letters of the 'title' are contained in the rest of the (part) stations. |

[AXI] Categories: A to Z |

An interesting paradox in *set theory*. One of the ways of proving this is to consider books which contain their title in their pages, and books which do not.

Categories: A to Z

The Mornington Crescent version of this involves bifurcation, and it is still an open question whether a paradox results. In this version the first (part) station is regarded as the 'title' of the 'book', and one places the entire play into one of three categories:-

- All the letters in the 'title' are contained in the rest of the (part) stations.
- Some of the letters of the 'title' are contained in the rest of the (part) stations.
- None of the letters of the 'title' are contained in the rest of the (part) stations.

Occasionally if a player plays bifurcations that fall into all three categories during the course of one game, their opponent will think that they are trying to prove the Mornington Crescent version of Russell's Paradox.

[AXI]

Categories: A to Z