Logic Defying

[TheWhiteWolf]

Hello again.

I got an idea.
Let's post sentences that defy themselves and defy logic.
To make it understandable, I will post an example:

EVERYTHING I SAY IS A LIE.

So, if the sentence is correct, that would mean that it is a lie, or in other words, false.

See what I want to say?

 

[HFR]

Yes and no.

 

[Magtheridon96]

You're asking for Paradoxes, but you are not asking for paradoxes.

 

[fladdermasken]

Gentleman Bastard.

 

[AlexDragon1111]

Less is more.

 

[Magtheridon96]

More is less.

 

[AlexDragon1111]

If more is less, then is less more?

 

[Magtheridon96]

Not always.
Equilateral is Isosceles, but Isosceles is not always Equilateral.
If I have $100, I have $1, but if I have $1, I don't have to have $100.

 

[AlexDragon1111]

BLASHPEMY!!!! BURN THE HERETIC!!!1

I guess that makes you smarter than me^^.

 

[Magtheridon96]

I don't want to be smarter, I want to be gayer >:-c

 

[AlexDragon1111]

You can be gayer than me, but you can't be gayer than Vengeancekael.

 

[Magtheridon96]

True :C

 

[Crayons]

this thread is awesome.

the last sentence doesn't defy logic.

 

[DSanhueza]

I died when they revived me

idk if that makes sense im baked

 

[Magtheridon96]

Actually, it's not a paradox
When they revived you, you became alive. At that moment, you died.

 

[AlexDragon1111]

A girl goes into the past and kills her grandmother. Since her grandmother is dead, the girl was never born. If she were never born, she never killed her grandmother.

 

[PROXY]

That's always the thing with going into the past, it will always lead in paradoxes ^_^

This sentence is not true.

 

[GhostThruster]

I refused rape

 

[AlexDragon1111]

You cannot refuse rape, rape refuses you.

 

[Magtheridon96]

Going into the past won't /always/ cause paradoxes.

Let's say I went into the past to say hi to someone and returned.
No paradoxes there

Also, all Lebanese people are wrong at all times.
(Note: I'm Lebanese)

 

[AlexDragon1111]

Well, what if the person you said hi was an important one?

 

[En_Fuego]

Hello again.

I got an idea.
Let's post sentences that defy themselves and defy logic.
To make it understandable, I will post an example:

EVERYTHING I SAY IS A LIE.

So, if the sentence is correct, that would mean that it is a lie, or in other words, false.

See what I want to say?

Your sentence does not defy the functionality of logic.

If a statement's truth value is ultimately tied up in some evaluable fact about the world, that statement is "grounded". If not, that statement is "ungrounded". Ungrounded statements do not have a truth value. Liar statements and liar-like statements are ungrounded, and therefore have no truth value.

The above outline for truth evaluation provides a standard such that infinitely regressive statements (I.E. 'I always lie') become finite insofar as it's not grounded, or functionally true.

Many philosophers have written about the "liar paradox" (so many that it even has it's own Wikipedia page!)

 

[AlexDragon1111]

Your sentence does not defy the functionality of logic.

If a statement's truth value is ultimately tied up in some evaluable fact about the world, that statement is "grounded". If not, that statement is "ungrounded". Ungrounded statements do not have a truth value. Liar statements and liar-like statements are ungrounded, and therefore have no truth value.

The above outline for truth evaluation provides a standard such that infinitely regressive statements (I.E. 'I always lie') become finite insofar as it's not grounded, or functionally true.

Many philosophers have written about the "liar paradox" (so many that it even has it's own Wikipedia page!)

Reading this sentence made my IQ drop by 40.

 

[Hoops]

Reading this sentence made my IQ drop by 40.

Which one?

 

[HFR]

He lost so many IQ points he forgot what a sentence is.

 

[AlexDragon1111]

Haha stupid me. ^^ When I wrote that I was a bit sleepy and high. What I meant is reading that reply made my IQ go down by 50.

Note to myself: A sentence is a grammatical unit that is composed of one or more clauses.

 

[gorillabull]

[broke=what's today, but yesterday's tomorrow]click here[/broke]

 

[takakenji]

Why Did 7 Run from 9? BEcause 7 8 9!

 

[GhostThruster]

takakenji's stupidity gave my hemorrhoid a hemorrhoid

 

[Adiktuz]

We don't exist
-nobodies (KH)

 

[DSanhueza]

I got a long one uhmmm early one morning, late last night... two dead boys got up to fight, back to back they faced each other drew their swords and shot each other a deaf policeman heard the noise he came and killed those two dead boys a mute psychotic shrieked in fright.

 

[Boris_Spider]

I ate my stomach, then I threw it up.

\\//xx\\//

 

[En_Fuego]

Haha stupid me. ^^ When I wrote that I was a bit sleepy and high. What I meant is reading that reply made my IQ go down by 50.

Note to myself: A sentence is a grammatical unit that is composed of one or more clauses.

I'm sorry. My english isn't that great.

 

[PROXY]

Pinnochio says: My nose is going to grow in the next moment.

 

[TheWhiteWolf]

That's a good one from PROXY. Maybe the best one so far, because it isn't just stupid, it really defies logic.

 

[En_Fuego]

Pinnochio says: My nose is going to grow in the next moment.

That's flawed given this series of actions (assume each line is a "moment"):

Pinocchio claims in the next moment his nose will grow.

His nose does not grow.

His nose grows because his nose did not grow in the prior moment.

Life goes on.

 

[Ash]

The horse raced past the barn fell.

That's actually logically correct, how's that for a pancake?

 

[Vunjo]

If you answered this question at randomly, what's the chance that your answer will be correct?
a) 25%
b) 50%
c) 60%
d) 25%

GLHF.

 

[Magtheridon96]

Oh shit. I see what you did there.
25% is the correct answer, but since both a and d are 25%, the true answer becomes 50%. But then, there's only one answer, so 25% is the correct answer once again, meaning there are 2 correct answers, meaning 50% is the correct answer...

Well, that is one clever paradox.
Kudos to you Vunjo.

 

[Vunjo]

If only I have thought of it myself....thanks anyway
My class really loved this one. Although there were some dummies who really thought there is an answer xD

 

[Urlock]

Let's say I went into the past to say hi to someone and returned.
No paradoxes there

Except even the smallest and minute of changes in the past will cause a ripple effect altering EVERYTHING thereafter. SO by going back in time to say 'hi' to someone would lead to circumstance in which

1) You do not exist, ergo you do not go back in time.

2) You no longer desire or are capable of going back in time, paradox again.

3) You exist, are capable of going back in time, but now you are a completely different person and therefore someone who never existed went back in time to say 'hi'.

No winning here.

 

[leet.firefox]

The sentence to the right is telling the truth. The sentence to the left is telling a lie.

 

[AlexDragon1111]

"I must be cruel to be kind." (William Shakespeare's Hamlet)

 

[Vunjo]

That's flawed given this series of actions (assume each line is a "moment"):

Pinocchio claims in the next moment his nose will grow.

His nose does not grow.

His nose grows because his nose did not grow in the prior moment.

Life goes on.

But if he stated that his nose will grow, and it did grow, that means he was telling the truth after all?
Therefore, it's still a paradox.

 

[En_Fuego]

But if he stated that his nose will grow, and it did grow, that means he was telling the truth after all?
Therefore, it's still a paradox.

No...He's saying his nose will grow in the next moment. His nose does not grow in the next moment. Then he becomes a liar. Then his nose grows in the next moment.

 

[Arcisal]

This sentence is false.

 

[MasterHaosis]

Nothing is done until it is done!

 

[Hashjie]

The truth can be nothing but a lie, however a lie always reflects the truth.

 

[Rui]

Raijin came up with an interesting one.

[20-33-04] RaijinSpark: You're not unique. Everyone else is. Therefore you are not?

The first obvious sign is that the truth of the conclusion is in the first premise: this is petitio principii, or "begging the question".
Is the truth expressed in the reasoning possible? Maybe. Let's replace «unique» for «yellow».

• • • • • You are not yellow, everyone else is, you are not. Looks okay, this must be possible.


However, if you can't help the feeling something's wrong, then you're right to feel that way.

The problem is the meaning and implications of the word «unique» in itself. In most contexts, we say a being A is unique to express that the collection and sum of characteristics in being A exist only in A. Which means there doesn't exist a being B whose sum of characteristics is a replica of A, A==B is impossible.

Confused? Let's think more simply. If something is unique, then it can't be equal to anything else. If something is not unique, then there must be something equal to it.

You==Unique => Nothing's equal to you
You!=Unique => Something's equal to you

You are not unique, everyone else is. You = Red face

Case 1: ☺ ☻ ♥ ♦ ♣
Case 1: Since «everyone else is unique», there's no one in "everyone" that can be equal to "you". «You are not unique» is false.

Case 2: ☺ ☺ ☻ ♥ ♦
Case 2: «You are not unique», true, because there's someone equal to you. However, if that is so, then there's someone in «everyone» that is equal to you. Therefore, that someone is not unique, because «you» are equal to it.​

Phew, that took some time and I'm not sure if I was thorough. Maybe my reasoning is wrong. Find me a counterexample xP

 

[Vunjo]

^ Both cases are correct, therefore, everyone's unique by that theory.
Maybe there's even a more simple way to describe it. If everyone's unique, therefore you are not equal to anyone, thus making you unique in the group of everyone.