Talk:Grelling–Nelson paradox

message: i've always thought autological was the more interesting of the two. heterological can't seem to go either way, but autological can go both! if you say it is, then it is, and if you don't, then it isn't. but neither way seems to be wrong or cause any problems. --dan 18:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: autological

message: :If the answer is 'no', "heterological" is heterological (again leading to a contradiction).
I don't necessarily understand why the sentence above results in a paradox.  DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 12:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Forget it...I was reading this sentence out of context and thus couldn't properly focus on it.  DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 12:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny...I got stuck on the same point once again, nearly 2.5 years later!  I added a little something in to make it more clear. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 01:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paradox? 

message: :To test if the (imaginary) word "'foo" is autological one can ask: Is "foo" a foo word? If the answer is 'yes', "foo" is autological. If the answer is 'no', "foo" is heterological.
I think this should be cut. Let's say the (imaginary) word is an actual word; why does that acceptance suddenly make it an adjective to fall under the "autological" or "heterological" analysis? Cygnis 07:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not just any word, it's an adjective, you're not reading it right; it is not just saying it's a word, it's saying it is a adjective that can be described with that adjective. --TiagoTiago (talk) 09:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foo? 

message: I've removed the following attempted solution from the main namespace since it appears to violate WP:NOR, but the editors of this article may find this useful. It's from an anonymous IP, though.—Goh wz 14:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another attempted solution 

message: i removed this refrence since no page was found and added 'list of paradoxes' in its place. Constructive editor (talk) 20:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  list of autological words 

message: I propose a neologism to describe a word which in referring to itself simultaneously fails to refer to itself. This is paradoxological. This word does not further complicate the paradox as it is a heterological word: If paradoxological was paradoxological it would be autological. However in being autological it becomes heterological. In being heterological it remains heterological. Blacknightshade (talk) 22:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Too bad Wikipedia can't accept original research; yours indeed seems like a great solution. --TiagoTiago (talk) 09:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paradoxological 

message: A portmanteau of malapropism and portmanteau. source: xkcd AdamDavid (talk) 06:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malamanteau? 

message: The representation of a word and the meaning of a word are not the same entity, and do not need to have the same value. The word "heterological" is autological, but the meaning of the word is still heterological. It's like saying that the meaning of the word "purple" changes because it is written in red. The "purple" is red, but it still means "purple."
This seems rather obvious. Surely there's a source that would use this to criticize the paradox. — trlkly 06:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  I don't see a contradiction 

message: The definition I'm seeing for 'ineffable' is "too great or extreme to be expressed or described in words." But if we have a word which means "too great…to be expressed in words," wouldn't the word contradict its own existence?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrayk (talk • contribs) 02:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Word 'Ineffable'? 

message: For better or worse, natural language allows us to define things that cannot logically exist. Logically, just like there can exist no set of all those sets that are not elements of themselves, there can exist no word that describes all those words that do not describe themselves. 
Russell's Paradox:  ~EXIST(r):[Set(r) & ALL(a):[Set(a) => [ElementOf(a,r) <=> ~ElementOf(a,a)]]]
We can substitute:
* Set → Word
* r → heterological
* ElementOf → Describes
Grelling's Paradox:  ~EXIST(heterological):[Word(heterological) & ALL(a):[Word(a) => [Describes(heterological,a) <=> ~Describes(a,a)]]]
--Danchristensen (talk) 04:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's Russell's Paradox--only the names have been changed! 

message: I have a feeling that this subject, along with the subject of Russell's paradox, might paradoxically become simpler by postulating a pair of adjectives wnkrz and zrknw in English such that one of them means "May appear to be pointless mental wankery but is actually a significant philosophical endeavour" and the other one means "May appear to be a significant philosophical endeavour but is actually pointless mental wankery", using them to attempt a solution of the Newly Generalized Grelling–Nelson Paradox, and then during the attempt, attempting to solve each successive metaparadox that continues to arise from what is now clearly an inherently self-referential form of self-reference? Underneath our feet, it may be turtles all the way down; above our intellects though, it's metaparadoxes all the way up! :) TooManyFingers (talk) 13:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another pair of words? 

message: Consider autological words (which are words that describe themself like "word, English, written, etc." Also consider that its opposite is a heterological word.
Now, imagine I am writing a list of autological words. Would it be wrong to place the word "example" on there? After all, if it is on a list of autological words, the word "example" must be an example, right? Now, keep your interpretation in mind. Based on this anwser, what about the word "counterexample"? If you had it on a list of examples, for "counterexample" to be true, you're contradicting the terms of the list. However, if you say it's not true, then isn't it a counterexample and therefore self-describing?
My understanding is that this is an example of the Grelling–Nelson paradox, but I'm not a linguistics expert. I'm not even sure if this subreddit is the best place, but I don't know where else to ask. Electricmaster (talk) 18:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "example"/"counterexample"