Just yet another paradox that flashes after realizing the Russel’s classic paradox. The content here is to be taken just as a fun stuff and _NO_ unethical motives behind.

Once upon a time there existed a person of truth (as people address) who didn’t have a pair. He was questioned regarding this as why didn’t he choose a pair for himself. The truthful person smiles for a moment and replies back in a soothing tone that,

I would love a person who doesn't have a lover for herself!

Though this would reflect the acceptance of the truthful person towards choosing a person, he has said something which is not consistent! Yes, the truthful person can either no more be truthful or he could never ever find a lover for himself! How is this possible?

Lets take some time to analyze what the person has said. “He said he would love a person who doesn’t have a lover for herself, isn’t? What is so wrong with this statement? It sounds very normal.” - Is this what you feel? The point is, whatever he uttered is right, there is no inconsistency in that. But consider the scenario he has found his love. His words, he would have a person who doesn’t have a lover would prove false since the person whom he has chosen has a lover no one other than this truthful person. Hence, he has not said the truth!

Lets enforce the fact in his statement in a different way. Lets consider that person knows what he speaks and would like to maintain consistency in whatever he does. Then, as soon as he finds his love, he would immediately realize he is in contradiction and would break up with her. Which means, he would never find a lover for himself.

But in reality, it doesn’t happen. We utter statements like above and still either we don’t realize its a contradiction, or it is not really a contradiction provided, the interpretation frames should be altered.

What is the actual truth? The statement said by our truthful person is of course true. The statement made at time T that he would find a love depending on the constraints at some other time T’ would hold its consistency and truthfulness within its effective time, dT = |T - T’|. After that, the statement loses its factuality since the ‘would’ in the statement ends once he finds his love, isn’t? So, our truthful person is still truthful (at least for sake of theoretical considerations).

We have resolved the inconsistency above. There has got to be a ‘conditional relaxation’ at some point. The above resolution does nothing more than cutting the theoretical fact and making it relative within a time-frame. Even in case of Russel’s classic paradox, the paradox is actually resolved by ‘classification’ of sets and presenting a hierarchy so as to avoid self looping and tricky recursions in sets leading to paradoxes.

If the truthful person had known the existence of notorious logicians dissecting his statements, he should better re-frame his statement as below

I would love a person who doesn't have a lover other than me for herself.

The self recursion is cut down by inclusion of ‘other than me’ which is nothing but a self reference. By making a self reference in the statement, the inconsistency created due to self reference at later point of time is removed. Stop! We are not done yet! The above statement again has to be analysed agains time for inconsistency. ‘other than me’ is not stuck with time and hence, if the truthful person has already got a person who is in love with him, and that he is about to love her, his statements hold true. In other scenario, if the truthful person chooses a person who is not initially in love with him and doesnot have any other either, then, his statement fails! In that case, we’ll make the person whom our truthful person chooses to say the samething what this guy says. Then, it would hold true in any scenario.

Truthful person: I would love a person who doesn't have a lover other than me for herself.
His pair:        I would love a person who doesn't have a lover other than me for himself.

The above statement matches one another in any scenarios. Hence the self-references could also be used to break inconsistencies. They can also be used to detect an inconsistency. The above system of statements also makes a one-to-one correspondence when put in action in a group. Could you see that?

Moreover, there is an inherent assumption that the truthful person chooses a person who loves him too. Otherwise, the paradox above makes no sense and his statement would be perfectly valid. Our truthful person would be in love with a person who neither loves him nor anyother.

The above statement can be a truth or a paradox depends on the framer of interception. But how does the actual facts (we mortals sill, isn’t?) hold to be true above all paradoxes and self references? Do we have miles to go before we realize the actual fact?

Given below are few paradoxes which have the same flavour and it’s really interesting to find the self references and recursions playing a trick.

1. The barber of a town shaves people who doesnot shave for themselves. Who would shave the barber?
2. Im lying.