them is satisfactory [@irving2016].

The paradox seems to emerge because of the time-free nature of logic. If we treat the process described in the analysis as an algorithm and execute it, then the output is an endless oscillation. Does the set contain itself? First it doesn’t, then it does, then it doesn’t, …. There is no contradiction. This oscillation depends on our working in discontinuous time — in this case the time of the computer’s clock. We can in principle make the clock speed arbitrarily fast, but if we could go to the limit of continuous time in operating the computer we would see the paradox re-emerge as something analogous to a quantum superposition: since the superposition endures it doesn’t depend on time, and independent of time, the value is always both ’does’ and ’doesn’t’. However, if we were to observe the state of the system at a particular instant, the superposition would collapse to a definite but arbitrary value — “does” or “doesn’t” — just as Schroedinger’s famous cat is only definitively alive or dead when the box is opened.

Of course a computer must work with a finite clock speed and so the paradox cannot appear. This resolution 