Curry's paradox is poor programming?

Curry's paradox at wiki could be stated as the self referential sentence: "If this sentence is true, infinity = finite."

In the real world, I could write this in 'c':
bool paradox(){if ( paradox() ){infinity_is_reached=TRUE;return TRUE;}};
Any CS 1.01 student knows this is a guaranteed crash. It makes no difference.
;In assembly language--
paradox: call paradox

Any programmer would see this as just a silly mistake, the recursion will continue until the stack overflows and faults. If you use recursion there must be an escape point or it crashes.

Though many of the things like Hilbert Space have utility, I question whether they are just positive spikes in infinite possibility and thus form a type of success through randomness. IMHO. I personally would not take a job offer to sling tuples and hash for pigeon holes at Hilbert's Hotel, even if I got an infinite number of free REGEXs to search it.

I have spoken about this before and it is of the same genre as including oneself inside oneself. Or defining the set of all things to include a set that contains all things, which is outside of all things. There is no nutritional value in cannibalism if you serve up yourself. No engine is perfectly efficient.

0 comments:

Automated Intelligence

Automated Intelligence
Auftrag der unendlichen LOL katzen