Beyond Universe Wiki
Register
Advertisement

The Space-Ception is the ultimate example of The Berry Paradox.

This not only contains itself and anything bigger than it, but it also destroys anything bigger than it, meaning that this will always be the biggest thing. Unless... if The Unlimited Blankness contains it.

Sometimes there are rogue Space-Ceptions which only contains something bigger than it instead of getting contained by The Unlimited Blankness.

The Berry Paradox[]

This page uses content from the English Wikipedia. The original article was at Space-Ception. The list of authors can be seen in the page history. As with Beyond Universe, the text of Wikipedia is available under Creative Commons License.


The Berry paradox is a self-referential paradox arising from an expression like "The smallest positive integer not definable in under sixty letters" (a phrase with fifty-seven letters).

Bertrand Russell, the first to discuss the paradox in print, attributed it to G. G. Berry (1867–1928), a junior librarian at Oxford's Bodleian Library. Russell called Berry "the only person in Oxford who understood mathematical logic". The paradox was called "Richard's paradox" by Jean-Yves Girard.

Overview[]

Consider the expression:

"The smallest positive integer not definable in under sixty letters."

Since there are only twenty-six letters in the English alphabet, there are finitely many phrases of under sixty letters, and hence finitely many positive integers that are defined by phrases of under sixty letters. Since there are infinitely many positive integers, this means that there are positive integers that cannot be defined by phrases of under sixty letters. If there are positive integers that satisfy a given property, then there is a smallest positive integer that satisfies that property; therefore, there is a smallest positive integer satisfying the property "not definable in under sixty letters". This is the integer to which the above expression refers. But the above expression is only fifty-seven letters long, therefore it is definable in under sixty letters, and is not the smallest positive integer not definable in under sixty letters, and is not defined by this expression. This is a paradox: there must be an integer defined by this expression, but since the expression is self-contradictory (any integer it defines is definable in under sixty letters), there cannot be any integer defined by it.

Advertisement