Talk:Russell's paradox

Solutions

... would include those genetic and medical conditions which result in the absence of body hair; or the barber uses waxing/electrolysis and similar. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

But he'd still be one of the people who didn't shave themselves. Christopher (talk) 16:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Alternative number 2 involves RobotBarber, so not a person in the formal sense. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

How about this? There are an infinite number of barbers who shave each other. So, the second barber shaves the first one, the third one shaves the second one and son on. Kind of like an infinite progress.Herr Doktor Enter into the rabbit hole 12:43, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

The flaw in the argument

The barber will not be shaving women, children, or 'males who do not grow (facial) hair' either. Or am I missing something? Anna Livia (talk) 19:14, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I think the literal interpretation is that the barber does shave those who do not need shaving. If they do not need any shaving at all, then they fall into the category of those who do not give themselves shaves. The shaving won't have any effect, but there is no reason why that should impact the barber. Kind of like pushing the "close" button on an elevator. :-) --Bertrc (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Bertc - your first sentence does not make sense: would a barber shave a eunuch?

There are flaws in the argument - are 'beards, moustaches and whiskers' being referred to, 'head hair' or 'all hair on the head and body' - with different groups of people falling into the first and the other two categories. Anna Livia (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Given the axiom, yes, the barber would needlessly shave a eunuch; it wouldn't matter that the eunuch does not need a shave. Heh, try talking to the parent of any teen-age boy trying to be a man (or to any man willing to talk about having been a teenage boy trying to be a man, I suppose) They will tell you that, yes, people can shave and/or be shaved, even when there is no hair to be removed! ;-) :-D As such, I would propose that, so long as the axiom is a barber who shaves "all those" who do not shave themselves, then he will be needlessly shaving those who do not need to be shaved (Well, except for the afore-mentioned teenagers who, on their own, needlessly shave themselves) Hmmmm, I guess a side-effect is that everybody in the town gets shaved, whether they need it or not. --Bertrc (talk) 17:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

A skull-shaver and/or a facial hair shaver would cover many options - and the non-inclusion of 'all non-bald persons' does create an ambiguity in the example. Anna Livia (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Why would we need non-bald as an exception or inclusion? That creates a loop hole for the paradox. Besides, my grand-father was bald and he still shaved . . . just not the top of his head. My brother, however, started shaving his lip shortly after entering high school, even though had had nothin' there. ;-) --Bertrc (talk) 21:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I was being inclusive - to cover the various areas of hirsuteness on the head (and the body if you wish to include that) - and 'persons travelling into and out of the locality' may form another loophole.

To have one logical loophole suggests there is a flaw in presenting the argument, to have two indicates that the example may be invalid. (What happens if there is a 'beard, moustache and whiskers competition' (examples can readily be found) in the locality is another complication.) Anna Livia (talk) 00:32, 21 December 2021 (UTC)