On Jul 31, 2015, acesover wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 1, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:

Quote:

On Jul 31, 2015, acesover wrote:

Quote:

On Jul 31, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
Actually, it wasn't misplaced. It was pretty clever but you simply didn't get the joke.

I could come back with the statement you make on occasion when discussing a topic and say. The mass killing of crows is nothing to joke about. But I won't do that.

And it's probably a good idea that you don't, because it would be a clueless comeback. But why break precedent? Go for it.

Here is the perfect example of you doing just as I mentioned: "Bandwagon? Why so dismissive?" All of a sudden you are so offended.

I have to laugh. You are so valiant and try to look so honorable when it suits you. That is exactly what I mean. Nothing but a ploy.

On Aug 1, 2015, rockwall wrote:
If I had raised a lion, he would look like Cecil.

On Aug 1, 2015, balducci wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 1, 2015, rockwall wrote:

If I had raised a lion, he would look like Cecil.

Speaking of raising a lion ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/articl......bed.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-......als.html

I can't imagine the size of the 'cat box'
This is NOT fake:

On Aug 1, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:

Quote:

On Jul 31, 2015, acesover wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 1, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:

Quote:

On Jul 31, 2015, acesover wrote:

Quote:

On Jul 31, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
Actually, it wasn't misplaced. It was pretty clever but you simply didn't get the joke.

I could come back with the statement you make on occasion when discussing a topic and say. The mass killing of crows is nothing to joke about. But I won't do that.

And it's probably a good idea that you don't, because it would be a clueless comeback. But why break precedent? Go for it.

Here is the perfect example of you doing just as I mentioned: "Bandwagon? Why so dismissive?" All of a sudden you are so offended.

I have to laugh. You are so valiant and try to look so honorable when it suits you. That is exactly what I mean. Nothing but a ploy.

Interesting that you can't even permit yourself to admit that the joke went completely over your head. Now you're just making yourself look stupid.

On Aug 2, 2015, landmark wrote:
For the last few hours, I've been fumbling with this paper that has the words "THE OTHER SIDE IS A LIE" on both sides of it.

I'll get back to you when I figure it out.

On Aug 2, 2015, landmark wrote:
For the last few hours, I've been fumbling with this paper that has the words "THE OTHER SIDE IS A LIE" on both sides of it.

I'll get back to you when I figure it out.

Yablo's paradox arises from considering the following infinite set of sentences:

(S1): for all k > 1, Sk is false
(S2): for all k > 2, Sk is false
(S3): for all k > 3, Sk is false
...
...

The paradox can be analyzed as follows. First, suppose that some statement Si is true. Then it follows from the statement of Si that every statement later in the sequence is false, and in particular that Si+1 is false. Hence, since Si+1 is false, there is some j>i+1 such that Sj is true. But, because j is also greater than i, this means that Si must have been false. This is a contradiction, so the original assumption that Si is true must be wrong. Thus Si must be false for every i. But this means, in particular, that Si is false for every i>1, and thus S1 is true. This is paradoxical, because the analysis has already shown that S1 cannot be true.

The analysis shows that there is no consistent way to assign truth values to the statements in the paradox. Moreover, none of the sentences refers to itself, but only to the subsequent sentences; this leads Yablo to claim that his paradox does not rely on self-reference. However, this claim is disputed.

On Aug 2, 2015, landmark wrote:
For the last few hours, I've been fumbling with this paper that has the words "THE OTHER SIDE IS A LIE" on both sides of it.

I'll get back to you when I figure it out.

On Aug 3, 2015, S2000magician wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 2, 2015, landmark wrote:
For the last few hours, I've been fumbling with this paper that has the words "THE OTHER SIDE IS A LIE" on both sides of it.

I'll get back to you when I figure it out.

That's an easy one: Side A is a lie; side B is not.

On Aug 3, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
Yes, you're right, aces. Actually your post wasn't interesting at all. As to the simplistic closed loop paradox of "The statement on the other side of this card is false," you should find the following explanation of the well-known Yablo's Paradox much more interesting, since Yablo claimed it was not self-referential as in the example you cited. This is the variant that I use to amuse myself when I'm not laughing at your posts:

Quote:

Yablo's paradox arises from considering the following infinite set of sentences:

(S1): for all k > 1, Sk is false
(S2): for all k > 2, Sk is false
(S3): for all k > 3, Sk is false
...
...

The paradox can be analyzed as follows. First, suppose that some statement Si is true. Then it follows from the statement of Si that every statement later in the sequence is false, and in particular that Si+1 is false. Hence, since Si+1 is false, there is some j>i+1 such that Sj is true. But, because j is also greater than i, this means that Si must have been false. This is a contradiction, so the original assumption that Si is true must be wrong. Thus Si must be false for every i. But this means, in particular, that Si is false for every i>1, and thus S1 is true. This is paradoxical, because the analysis has already shown that S1 cannot be true.

The analysis shows that there is no consistent way to assign truth values to the statements in the paradox. Moreover, none of the sentences refers to itself, but only to the subsequent sentences; this leads Yablo to claim that his paradox does not rely on self-reference. However, this claim is disputed.

http://www.accionfilosofica.com/misc/1183297103crs.pdf

Hope that clears it up for you.

If you were a mentalist, you'd know that such paradoxes form the basis of many powerful routines.