How to solve the Barber Paradox.

here we go:

shaves(barber, X) :- male(X), not shaves(X,X).
male(barber).

He both shaves and does not shave himself by definition.

Here is the issue with the paradox: It is that it is incomplete.

It may be a complete statement for logic, but it is only a paradox because of the constraints of logic. One of the constraints of logic is that there is no time-scale.

The system needs more inputs. The definition can exist – we just made it. We defined it. But to resolve it we need to:

a) specify times where he does shave himself.
b) specify times where he does not shave himself.

It is that he is both shaving and not shaving himself SIMULTANEOUSLY (and _this_ is where the issue arises from – the simultaneousity _implied_ in the system) – that it becomes a paradox *within* the constraints of non-contradictory logic _only_.

In short, it is a sign that you have reached the border. You have reached the limits of what non-contradictory logic is capable of. It can go no further.

So, one must go further via other means.

Add time.
Add other additional metrics, such as statistical probability.
Provide a choice for the Actor.
Provide a choice for the person solving the puzzle. [does he shave today or does he not?]

etc.

Additionally, one very important, easy to overlook fact:

This is a thought experiment. A thought experiment is a fiction.

There is no barber that exists with this definition.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


7 + = fifteen

Leave a Reply