MJ Posted December 7, 2003 Report Share Posted December 7, 2003 Domino, MJ's assumption is "liar in strong sense". I also make that assumption ... which means liar always lies. Yes, that's what I assume. Otherwise, there is nothing even to discuss here. If we should understand that being liar implies that one can lie sometimes and tell the truth some other times, then the statement is perfectly fine as it is and leads to no contradictions whatsoever. Someone says (Italian or not) all Italians may sometimes lie, and that's the end of the statement. No further analysis needed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted December 7, 2003 Report Share Posted December 7, 2003 (edited) In this Paradox, the claim as liar, means always lies, it is taken in its strong sense. But this does not change the fact, because you end up by a "lie of a lie" which would be the truth... so him always lying would lie about his lying, which means that he would say the truth even if he always lies... this is the main point of the paradox. Edited December 7, 2003 by Fadix Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJ Posted December 7, 2003 Report Share Posted December 7, 2003 In this Paradox, the claim as liar, means always lies, it is taken in its strong sense. But this does not change the fact, because you end up by a "lie of a lie" which would be the truth... so him always lying would lie about his lying, which means that he would say the truth even if he always lies... this the the main point of the paradox. This is what I call random thought... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armat Posted December 7, 2003 Author Report Share Posted December 7, 2003 Sip lets look at this example.This statement is falseTruefalseneitherIt is a more simpler version of Italians Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted December 7, 2003 Report Share Posted December 7, 2003 This is what I call random thought... But I havn't invented this paradox. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted December 7, 2003 Report Share Posted December 7, 2003 Sip lets look at this example.This statement is falseTruefalseneitherIt is a more simpler version of Italians TOUCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now Sip I'm waiting your answer to this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armat Posted December 7, 2003 Author Report Share Posted December 7, 2003 (edited) Sip lets look at this example.This statement is falseTruefalseneitherIt is a more simpler version of ItaliansIt is false because it says so in the sentance but true because it also admit the fact that it is false Edited December 7, 2003 by Armat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJ Posted December 7, 2003 Report Share Posted December 7, 2003 But I havn't invented this paradox. The only paradox that I see here is you... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted December 7, 2003 Report Share Posted December 7, 2003 The only paradox that I see here is you... I am not the person who wrote me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJ Posted December 7, 2003 Report Share Posted December 7, 2003 (edited) I am not the person who wrote me. That is another random thought in the vacuum of the Universe where the substance is illusion... Edited December 7, 2003 by MJ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted December 7, 2003 Report Share Posted December 7, 2003 That is another random thought in a vacuum where the substance is absent... Actualy not, because it does not come from me either, it is derivated from what this paradox imply. Just think about it, you'll find it fun as well, believe me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJ Posted December 7, 2003 Report Share Posted December 7, 2003 Thanks, I am done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted December 7, 2003 Report Share Posted December 7, 2003 This statement is false Neither. That statement is neither true nor false. If it's true, then it is false. If it's false, then it's true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted December 7, 2003 Report Share Posted December 7, 2003 This statement is falseNeither. That statement is neither true nor false. If it's true, then it is false. If it's false, then it's true. Actualy, it is true and it is false Do I sense that you are realising now why the first proposition is not only false? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted December 7, 2003 Report Share Posted December 7, 2003 (edited) Actualy, it is true and it is false but if it is false, it can't be true when it is, if it is true it can't be false when it is. etc... Edited December 7, 2003 by Fadix Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armat Posted December 7, 2003 Author Report Share Posted December 7, 2003 This statement is falseNeither. That statement is neither true nor false. If it's true, then it is false. If it's false, then it's true. You got it!!! hence the loop theory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted December 7, 2003 Report Share Posted December 7, 2003 Oh MY GOD (referring to Domino mostly)!!! A ) "This statement is false" is neither TRUE nor FALSE.B ) "I am Italian AND all italians are liars" is FALSE. Let's make a truth table and get this over with ok? p = "this statement is false" 1) p = TRUE -> FALSE2) p = FALSE -> TRUE So NEITHER. ------------- p = "I am italian"q = "all italians are liars" 1) p= TRUE, q=TRUE -> FALSE (can't be since q implies not p)2) p= TRUE, q=FALSE -> FALSE 3) p= FALSE, q=TRUE -> FALSE4) p= FALSE, q=FALSE -> FALSE All valid truth assignments result in FALSE. Are we done? How can one possibly get more rigorous than an exhaustive enumeration? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted December 7, 2003 Report Share Posted December 7, 2003 Armat, thanks for this thread, now I will be braking Sasuns head with new posts refering to this paradox as an example of undeterministic reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted December 7, 2003 Report Share Posted December 7, 2003 Oh MY GOD (referring to Domino mostly)!!! A ) "This statement is false" is neither TRUE nor FALSE.B ) "I am Italian AND all italians are liars" is FALSE. Let's make a truth table and get this over with ok? p = "this statement is false" 1) p = true -> FALSE2) p = false -> TRUE So NEITHER. ------------- p = "I am italian"q = "all italians are liars" 1) p= TRUE, q=TRUE -> can't be since q implies not p.2) p= TRUE, q=FALSE -> FALSE 3) p= FALSE, q=TRUE -> FALSE4) p= FALSE, q=FALSE -> FALSE All valid truth assignments result in FALSE. Are we done? How can one possibly get more rigorous than an exhaustive enumeration? Sip, you are cheating here, CHEATER!!! You are not quoting me, The first statment is true, it has no possibility of a false... so by considering this, and the lie of a lie would be true, you will end up with TRUE, TRUE -> TRUE. Exactlly as the This statement is false. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted December 7, 2003 Report Share Posted December 7, 2003 huh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted December 7, 2003 Report Share Posted December 7, 2003 (edited) huh?This statment = ItalianThis statment is false = Italians are liars.is false = are liars. So, when you say statment, it implies Italians, while you do not question if this statment is a statment, you do question if the Italian is an Italian in your test. This is cheating. Edited December 7, 2003 by Fadix Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted December 7, 2003 Report Share Posted December 7, 2003 Domino: "I am an Italian AND all italians are liars" Tell me how that can possibly be true. I am having a very hard time understanding what you are trying to say. Give me a scenario how that statement can be true. If it can't be true, then it has to be false. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted December 7, 2003 Report Share Posted December 7, 2003 (edited) Here the original, just lets stick to this one: Epimenides the Cretan said, "All Cretans are liars." All includes the Cretan.Cretans being a liar, the Cretan that say it lies. So what the Cretan is saying is I AM LYING!!! This is like saying, that there is a sentence(a Cretan) that writes as(says) that all sentences are wrong, by writing this up, I am saying that this sentence is wrong... therefore... the "I" could be replaced by "sentence," "am" by "is" and "lying" by "false". I = sentenceam = islying = false Therefore, for a Cretan telling that all Cretans lies would be the same as stating that this sentence is false. I don't see how more I can simplify this. Edited December 7, 2003 by Fadix Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted December 7, 2003 Report Share Posted December 7, 2003 I am waiting for answer to my question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED Posted December 7, 2003 Report Share Posted December 7, 2003 I dont drink, but I fill like having one. No peredox in that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.