# INTARESTIN DISCUSSHINS

General — Page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8
melloyellow582
The Original Portmanteau

2005 Mar 21 • 12860
666 ₧
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 8 at 19:45 PST
SolidKAYOS

2007 Jun 24 • 84
68 ₧
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 8 at 19:49 PST
melloyellow582
The Original Portmanteau

2005 Mar 21 • 12860
666 ₧
Thanks.
 ≡ 2010 Nov 8 at 19:54 PST
SolidKAYOS

2007 Jun 24 • 84
68 ₧
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 8 at 20:12 PST
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 01:08 PST
aaronjer

2005 Mar 21 • 4667
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 03:59 PST
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 05:32 PST
aaronjer

2005 Mar 21 • 4667
1,227 ₧
"I" knew what you meant.
 ≡ 2010 Nov 9 at 06:13 PST
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 06:16 PST
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?
LET LOVE REIGN
 ≡ 2010 Nov 9 at 09:12 PST — Ed. 2010 Nov 9 at 09:13 PST
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 9 at 16:47 PST — Ed. 2010 Nov 9 at 16:47 PST
melloyellow582
The Original Portmanteau

2005 Mar 21 • 12860
666 ₧
Bump!
 ≡ 2010 Nov 11 at 13:55 PST
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 14:34 PST
melloyellow582
The Original Portmanteau

2005 Mar 21 • 12860
666 ₧
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 14:37 PST
Down Rodeo
Cap'n Moth of the Firehouse

2007 Oct 19 • 5486
57,583 ₧
I meant about that sentence. The prawn one.
 ≡ 2010 Nov 11 at 16:07 PST
melloyellow582
The Original Portmanteau

2005 Mar 21 • 12860
666 ₧
Oh! Right. Different topic.

 ≡ 2010 Nov 11 at 16:46 PST — Ed. 2010 Nov 11 at 16:46 PST
melloyellow582
The Original Portmanteau

2005 Mar 21 • 12860
666 ₧
Of course it is a false sentence. That's why it's fun!
 ≡ 2010 Nov 11 at 16:48 PST
melloyellow582
The Original Portmanteau

2005 Mar 21 • 12860
666 ₧
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 11 at 16:51 PST
sprinkles

2009 Sep 6 • 2547
10 ₧
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.

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 11 at 18:47 PST — Ed. 2010 Nov 11 at 18:48 PST
the_cloud_system
polly pushy pants

2008 Aug 1 • 3076
-6 ₧
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 11 at 18:58 PST
Rockbomb
Dog fucker (but in a good way now)

2009 Nov 13 • 2045
What language do deaf people think in?
 ≡ 2010 Nov 11 at 19:31 PST
the_cloud_system
polly pushy pants

2008 Aug 1 • 3076
-6 ₧
so said the mute man to the def dog
I drink to forget but I always remember.
 ≡ 2010 Nov 11 at 21:46 PST
aaronjer

2005 Mar 21 • 4667
1,227 ₧
sprinkles said:

Just because something claims it is a paradox doesn't make it a paradox.
 ≡ 2010 Nov 11 at 22:17 PST
Zarathustra
Monotheist

2005 Apr 30 • 315
167 ₧

Thus spoke Zarathustra.
 ≡ 2010 Nov 11 at 22:31 PST — Ed. 2010 Nov 11 at 22:32 PST
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 01:21 PST
Page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8