formalized without paradoxes like
that of the heap.

&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt;[Pat Hayes]
&gt; &gt; &gt; It seems quite obvious to me both that the
&gt; &gt; &gt; antecedents of the paradox are correct - heaps are finite, may be
&gt; &gt; &gt; large, and removing a single grain from a large heap never, in
&gt; &gt; &gt; itself, makes a large heap small  - and that the conclusion is
&gt; &gt; &gt; absurd, and yet that the reasoning has no obvious flaws in it.
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt;  I think it's clear that both can't