|
The fact that is IS a paradox makes it not a paradox. The sentence (if it can define itself, which is another matter entirely) basically states that it is a paradox; however, a paradox is basically something that doesn't make sense. So, logically it is true that if the sentence is not a shrimp (which it is not), it "must" be a paradox. That leads to the problem, because a paradox shouldn't make sense. That means that the sentence is NOT a paradox after all! Still, I am fairly confident that the sentence still is not a shrimp.
Again, it is very silly and doesn't stand have much true intellectual merit, but it is fun.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Nov 9 at 03:45 UTC
|
|
|
|
Exactly
Make awkward sexual advances, not war. Down Rodeo said: Dammit, this was the one place that didn't have this, but noooooo, molkman pisses all over that 
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Nov 9 at 03:49 UTC
|
|
|
|
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Nov 9 at 03:54 UTC
|
|
|
|
melloyellow582 said: Thanks.
No i meant exactly my point from the other truck that..ya.
Make awkward sexual advances, not war. Down Rodeo said: Dammit, this was the one place that didn't have this, but noooooo, molkman pisses all over that
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Nov 9 at 04:12 UTC
|
|
|
Down Rodeo
Cap'n Moth of the Firehouse
2007 Oct 19 • 5486
57,583 ₧
|
Well, I'd break it into a question of semantics. "If this statement is not X, it is Y", is basically all it says.
if(not(X))then(Y)
Has a table that looks a little like this:
code X Y | Statement T T | T T F | T F T | T F F | F This looks the way it is because of the NOT X. So, we can see that the bottom case of X false and Y false corresponds to the case where the sentence is not a shrimp but is a paradox. This evaluates to a sentence that is false overall. Sorted!
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Nov 9 at 09:08 UTC
|
|
|
aaronjer
*****'n Admin
2005 Mar 21 • 5102
1,227 ₧
|
melloyellow582 said: ]The paradox itself states: "If this statement is not a shrimp, then it is a paradox."
What makes this statement untimely confusing is the fact that it is not a shrimp. This would have us conclude that it is a paradox.
I have a problem with this. I would not be haved to conclude any such thing. I'd be all like, "It is not a shrimp, it is also not a paradox. It is just wrong."
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Nov 9 at 11:59 UTC
|
|
|
Down Rodeo
Cap'n Moth of the Firehouse
2007 Oct 19 • 5486
57,583 ₧
|
aaronjer said: I have a problem with this. I would not be haved to conclude any such thing. I'd be all like, "It is not a shrimp, it is also not a paradox. It is just wrong."
Which is what I said, but in logic-speak. Didn't exactly make that clear, did I?
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Nov 9 at 13:32 UTC
|
|
|
aaronjer
*****'n Admin
2005 Mar 21 • 5102
1,227 ₧
|
"I" knew what you meant.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Nov 9 at 14:13 UTC
|
|
|
Down Rodeo
Cap'n Moth of the Firehouse
2007 Oct 19 • 5486
57,583 ₧
|
That's all that matters, really. <3
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Nov 9 at 14:16 UTC
|
|
|
molkman
Owner of George Washington's Prototype Mittens
2005 May 2 • 2066
404 ₧
|
Down Rodeo said: if(not(X))then(Y)
Has a table that looks a little like this:
code X Y | Statement T T | T T F | T F T | T F F | F I don't quite get your table. What does X - True, for example, mean? That it is a true statement?
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Nov 9 at 17:12 UTC
— Ed. 2010 Nov 9 at 17:13 UTC
|
|
|
Down Rodeo
Cap'n Moth of the Firehouse
2007 Oct 19 • 5486
57,583 ₧
|
Sorry, it was the best truth table I could do at the time. Basically, we have two logical variables, X and Y. The values underneath X and Y denote whether we take them as true or false; the next column is basically ¬X -> Y.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Nov 10 at 00:47 UTC
— Ed. 2010 Nov 10 at 00:47 UTC
|
|
|
|
Bump!
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Nov 11 at 21:55 UTC
|
|
|
Down Rodeo
Cap'n Moth of the Firehouse
2007 Oct 19 • 5486
57,583 ₧
|
Do you agree or disagree with our logics?
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Nov 11 at 22:34 UTC
|
|
|
|
I totally agree that logically, it is easy to define something like a bale of hay, but practically it is both ridiculous and almost impossible to do.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Nov 11 at 22:37 UTC
|
|
|
Down Rodeo
Cap'n Moth of the Firehouse
2007 Oct 19 • 5486
57,583 ₧
|
I meant about that sentence. The prawn one.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Nov 12 at 00:07 UTC
|
|
|
|
Oh! Right. Different topic.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Nov 12 at 00:46 UTC
— Ed. 2010 Nov 12 at 00:46 UTC
|
|
|
|
Of course it is a false sentence. That's why it's fun!
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Nov 12 at 00:48 UTC
|
|
|
|
Triple post!
John Locke time:
Quote: If a man born blind, and able to distinguish by touch between a cube and a globe, were made to see, could he now tell by sight which was the cube and which the globe, before he touched them?
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Nov 12 at 00:51 UTC
|
|
|
|
melloyellow582 said: The fact that is IS a paradox makes it not a paradox. The sentence (if it can define itself, which is another matter entirely) basically states that it is a paradox; however, a paradox is basically something that doesn't make sense. So, logically it is true that if the sentence is not a shrimp (which it is not), it "must" be a paradox. That leads to the problem, because a paradox shouldn't make sense. That means that the sentence is NOT a paradox after all! Still, I am fairly confident that the sentence still is not a shrimp.
Again, it is very silly and doesn't stand have much true intellectual merit, but it is fun.
But, couldn't the actual paradox be that the sentence is a paradox? I mean, its a paradox that a paradox makes sense?
I'm a worker not a thinker. Whenever somebody has something that needs to be built or whatever, I sit back and let them work out the details. I jus' pick up a hammer and start nailing stuff together. I guess that makes me Mexican?
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Nov 12 at 02:47 UTC
— Ed. 2010 Nov 12 at 02:48 UTC
|
|
|
|
Quote: If a man born blind, and able to distinguish by touch between a cube and a globe, were made to see, could he now tell by sight which was the cube and which the globe, before he touched them?
you learn it in a school like normal children
I drink to forget but I always remember.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Nov 12 at 02:58 UTC
|
|
|
Rockbomb
Dog fucker (but in a good way now)
2009 Nov 14 • 2045
|
What language do deaf people think in? 
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Nov 12 at 03:31 UTC
|
|
|
|
so said the mute man to the def dog
I drink to forget but I always remember.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Nov 12 at 05:46 UTC
|
|
|
aaronjer
*****'n Admin
2005 Mar 21 • 5102
1,227 ₧
|
sprinkles said: But, couldn't the actual paradox be that the sentence is a paradox? I mean, its a paradox that a paradox makes sense?
Just because something claims it is a paradox doesn't make it a paradox.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Nov 12 at 06:17 UTC
|
|
|
|
You want a paradox? I’ll give you a fuckin’ paradox!
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Nov 12 at 06:31 UTC
— Ed. 2010 Nov 12 at 06:32 UTC
|
|
|
Down Rodeo
Cap'n Moth of the Firehouse
2007 Oct 19 • 5486
57,583 ₧
|
Very nice.
Yes, I reckon if he thought about it he could. Spheres have no discontinuities but cubes do, so I guess using that knowledge you could. I was going to make arguments about visualising based on the data from your hands, but that's not correct.
Rockbomb: I'd assume something visual, maybe, like "seeing"text, but you're right, head asplode.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Nov 12 at 09:21 UTC
|
|
|
|
