[Guest]

to include the 'content's page' number in the contents

of a book is redundant, since it provides a totally apparent, and thus

trivial, information. On the other hand, the 'contents-page' is in

itself a content of a book, so why not include the number of the 'contents-page' in the 'contents-page'?

[Guest]

Well, in part, the reader is only going to be able to read the contents page when they are at the contents page, so the page number serves no referential purpose. Though the contents page does sometimes get labeled with a preface number (usually lowercase Roman numerals) that are used to represent pages of information that introduce the book, without being directly related to the main subject matter. In those cases where the contents page is labeled thus, it usually does appear listed in the Table of Contents.

I have to say that your question did remind me of recursive acronyms, which can be fun to read.

[Guest]

i agree with your observation. I do not mean that inf act the number of the contents page must be included in the contents page. Rather, i mentioned it as a 'paradox-like', or a 'recursion-related' phenomenon, one that is proposed as such, only in theoretical terms. But do you agree, that in strict artificial or theooretical terms, it has the characteristics of a genuine paradox -say, by way of self-reference?