There's a paradox hiding somewhere here... something along the lines of "This is a contest where the winner is the one who places second."
but that would just mean that the person who came in first and the person who wins aren't the same person so if you want a paradox you'd have to tweak your wording a bit
I just clicked on a very stupid ad just to support this comic. The things I do for the love of Math.
I was hoping for the "Top Entry for Top 1 Lists which are not included as Top Entries in any other single-item lists".
That one is harder to pin down.
Oh no, not a paradox!
Don't you guys know anything? Of course it's spelled "parabox"!
best episode of ANY tv show EVER
How many sublists must this list be decomposed into to make two lists of the same length?
Considering that you didn't state that the sublists had to be proper sublists or distinct, you could take the original list twice.
Not necessarily. Just biased.
its tomorrow already, you haven't released 'The Top One List of Top One Lists of Top Two Lists of Top One Lists' yet!
It isn't tomorrow yet, that's not until tomorrow.
Yesterday I posted a comment )on another site) ab0uy "Figaro", today I come across this. Coincidence or plot; what do you think>
Yay random icons
Unless you have one of your own...
Circular references are not a joke!
Every day I come here to the same cartoon, I think it's some sort of recursive cartoon--and we are all caught in the cycle.
Something doesn't seem right. The list might not be recursive at all. Instead of a self-referential set, the list could be a simple statement that it is the best top-one list of top-one lists. Still, it seems like the list is logically questionable. I just can't put my finger on it. Perhaps, the list itself is a top-one list of degree 2 (top-one list of top-one lists), which implies that the item inside will be a top-one list of degree 1. Unfortunately, the item is of degree 2, and therefore should not be included in the list at all.