dambrosi@ucbvax.UUCP (10/20/83)
I agree with Ken Laws interpretation of the paradox. His resolution, however, is somewhat problematical, in that it assumes a finite subcategorization of "rarity" can handle the paradox. I think part of the point of the paradox is that there does not exist any finite subcategorization which will handle all possible paradoxes of the form proposed. This suggests, then, that then statement "rare things are expensive" is inherently "fuzzy" and that a statement of this fuzziness should be stored with the base statement itself. Then, when a paradox is encountered, the "fuzziness" estimates can be used as a guide to which statements to explore in attempting to construct a non-paradoxical interpretation.