Beach

Sayomi Hatake wrote:*sigh*

Sayomi Hatake wrote:I had a dentist appointment today ... it sucked ....

shugo wrote:ROFL i love this stuff
you know the sick thing it never confuses me im not saying i can solve it when i see that there is a paradox then i jsut get exited and absorbe it and think about it all day

shugo wrote:ok here you go heres the answer


If we suggest that what the man says is true, then we end in
contradiction: if the man’s claim that he is lying is true, then he is
lying, in which case what he says is false.
If we suggest that what the man says is false, then we are no better
off: if the man’s claim that he is lying is false, then he is not
lying, in which case what he says is true.
Both answers give rise to logical contradictions; it cannot be the
case either that what the man says is true or that what the man says is
false.
The Liar Paradox is sometimes referred to as “Epimenides’ Paradox”,
after the sixth-century B.C. Cretan who asserted that all Cretans are
liars. The apostle Paul makes reference to Epimenides in Titus 1:12,
writing, “It was one of them, their very own prophet who said, ‘Cretans
are always liars, vicious brutes, lazy gluttons.’”
Epimenides’ statement alone does not give rise to a paradox. What he
says can’t be true, for if Cretans are always liars, and he is a
Cretan, then he must be lying, in which case his statement is false.
His statement could be false however; it could be that Epimenides is
dishonest but that not all Cretans are liars.
Paul, though, excludes this dissolution of the paradox, proceeding
to say in the following verse, “This testimony is true.” This leaves
Paul asserting that Epimenides truly said that he (and all other
Cretans) are liars, which takes us back to Eubulides’ paradox above;
Paul cannot be right.

shugo wrote:

Sayomi Hatake wrote:*sigh*

*huggs* how are you

NejiFan wrote:

shugo wrote:ok here you go heres the answer


If we suggest that what the man says is true, then we end in
contradiction: if the man’s claim that he is lying is true, then he is
lying, in which case what he says is false.
If we suggest that what the man says is false, then we are no better
off: if the man’s claim that he is lying is false, then he is not
lying, in which case what he says is true.
Both answers give rise to logical contradictions; it cannot be the
case either that what the man says is true or that what the man says is
false.
The Liar Paradox is sometimes referred to as “Epimenides’ Paradox”,
after the sixth-century B.C. Cretan who asserted that all Cretans are
liars. The apostle Paul makes reference to Epimenides in Titus 1:12,
writing, “It was one of them, their very own prophet who said, ‘Cretans
are always liars, vicious brutes, lazy gluttons.’”
Epimenides’ statement alone does not give rise to a paradox. What he
says can’t be true, for if Cretans are always liars, and he is a
Cretan, then he must be lying, in which case his statement is false.
His statement could be false however; it could be that Epimenides is
dishonest but that not all Cretans are liars.
Paul, though, excludes this dissolution of the paradox, proceeding
to say in the following verse, “This testimony is true.” This leaves
Paul asserting that Epimenides truly said that he (and all other
Cretans) are liars, which takes us back to Eubulides’ paradox above;
Paul cannot be right.

Omg, what!? Jeez, this stuff hurts my brain. xDDD

shugo wrote:

Sayomi Hatake wrote:I had a dentist appointment today ... it sucked ....

aww i had a mri

jake989 wrote:Money!

jake989 wrote:Money!

Sayomi Hatake wrote:

jake989 wrote:Money!

hu what where... give me the money!!!

Gaara of the Sand wrote:i'm interested in these parodoxes

give me mroe

Sayomi Hatake wrote:

shugo wrote:

Sayomi Hatake wrote:I had a dentist appointment today ... it sucked ....

aww i had a mri

ya .... fun ... I have a very large fear of dentists .... maybe cause I had sooo many cavities as a kid

jake989 wrote:

Sayomi Hatake wrote:

jake989 wrote:Money!

hu what where... give me the money!!!

...NO!
Tis mine!

NejiFan wrote:

shugo wrote:ok here you go heres the answer


If we suggest that what the man says is true, then we end in
contradiction: if the man’s claim that he is lying is true, then he is
lying, in which case what he says is false.
If we suggest that what the man says is false, then we are no better
off: if the man’s claim that he is lying is false, then he is not
lying, in which case what he says is true.
Both answers give rise to logical contradictions; it cannot be the
case either that what the man says is true or that what the man says is
false.
The Liar Paradox is sometimes referred to as “Epimenides’ Paradox”,
after the sixth-century B.C. Cretan who asserted that all Cretans are
liars. The apostle Paul makes reference to Epimenides in Titus 1:12,
writing, “It was one of them, their very own prophet who said, ‘Cretans
are always liars, vicious brutes, lazy gluttons.’”
Epimenides’ statement alone does not give rise to a paradox. What he
says can’t be true, for if Cretans are always liars, and he is a
Cretan, then he must be lying, in which case his statement is false.
His statement could be false however; it could be that Epimenides is
dishonest but that not all Cretans are liars.
Paul, though, excludes this dissolution of the paradox, proceeding
to say in the following verse, “This testimony is true.” This leaves
Paul asserting that Epimenides truly said that he (and all other
Cretans) are liars, which takes us back to Eubulides’ paradox above;
Paul cannot be right.

Omg, what!? Jeez, this stuff hurts my brain. xDDD

shugo wrote:

Sayomi Hatake wrote:

shugo wrote:

Sayomi Hatake wrote:I had a dentist appointment today ... it sucked ....

aww i had a mri

ya .... fun ... I have a very large fear of dentists .... maybe cause I had sooo many cavities as a kid

awww and really why do you feel like a mom

shugo wrote:

NejiFan wrote:

shugo wrote:ok here you go heres the answer


If we suggest that what the man says is true, then we end in
contradiction: if the man’s claim that he is lying is true, then he is
lying, in which case what he says is false.
If we suggest that what the man says is false, then we are no better
off: if the man’s claim that he is lying is false, then he is not
lying, in which case what he says is true.
Both answers give rise to logical contradictions; it cannot be the
case either that what the man says is true or that what the man says is
false.
The Liar Paradox is sometimes referred to as “Epimenides’ Paradox”,
after the sixth-century B.C. Cretan who asserted that all Cretans are
liars. The apostle Paul makes reference to Epimenides in Titus 1:12,
writing, “It was one of them, their very own prophet who said, ‘Cretans
are always liars, vicious brutes, lazy gluttons.’”
Epimenides’ statement alone does not give rise to a paradox. What he
says can’t be true, for if Cretans are always liars, and he is a
Cretan, then he must be lying, in which case his statement is false.
His statement could be false however; it could be that Epimenides is
dishonest but that not all Cretans are liars.
Paul, though, excludes this dissolution of the paradox, proceeding
to say in the following verse, “This testimony is true.” This leaves
Paul asserting that Epimenides truly said that he (and all other
Cretans) are liars, which takes us back to Eubulides’ paradox above;
Paul cannot be right.

Omg, what!? Jeez, this stuff hurts my brain. xDDD

crazy huh whats worse is the paradox of divide by zero

Sayomi Hatake wrote:

shugo wrote:

Sayomi Hatake wrote:

shugo wrote:

Sayomi Hatake wrote:I had a dentist appointment today ... it sucked ....

aww i had a mri

ya .... fun ... I have a very large fear of dentists .... maybe cause I had sooo many cavities as a kid

awww and really why do you feel like a mom

cause my bro is such a kid I gotta cook for him and make sure hes not doing anything dangerous and such . .. lol

shugo wrote:

Gaara of the Sand wrote:i'm interested in these parodoxes

give me mroe

Nihilism is the view that nothing exists. There are different kinds
of nihilism; one can be a moral nihilist, for instance, holding that
morality does not exist, or a religious nihilist, holding that God does
not exist. The problem of the specious present supports a universal
nihilism, the view that nothing whatsoever exists.
In order for something to exist it must have duration, it must exist
for a certain amount of time. To say that something exists for no time
at all, that at the very moment that it comes into existence it also
passes out of it, is to say that it doesn’t exist at all. Unicorns
exist for no time at all; so do square circles. Things that exist for
no time at all don’t exist. In order for something to exist it must
have duration.
The past and the future do not exist; they are not there, in the
world. Perhaps the past once existed, and perhaps its effects can still
be seen in the world today, but the past doesn’t exist now; if it
exists now, then where is it? And perhaps the future will exist one
day, but it doesn’t exist yet; again, if it exists now, then where is
it? The past and the future clearly do not exist; the universe consists
only of the gap between them, the present.
How large is the gap between the past and the future? What is the duration of the present? A minute? A second? A nano-second?

shugo wrote:

Gaara of the Sand wrote:i'm interested in these parodoxes

give me mroe

Nihilism is the view that nothing exists. There are different kinds
of nihilism; one can be a moral nihilist, for instance, holding that
morality does not exist, or a religious nihilist, holding that God does
not exist. The problem of the specious present supports a universal
nihilism, the view that nothing whatsoever exists.
In order for something to exist it must have duration, it must exist
for a certain amount of time. To say that something exists for no time
at all, that at the very moment that it comes into existence it also
passes out of it, is to say that it doesn’t exist at all. Unicorns
exist for no time at all; so do square circles. Things that exist for
no time at all don’t exist. In order for something to exist it must
have duration.
The past and the future do not exist; they are not there, in the
world. Perhaps the past once existed, and perhaps its effects can still
be seen in the world today, but the past doesn’t exist now; if it
exists now, then where is it? And perhaps the future will exist one
day, but it doesn’t exist yet; again, if it exists now, then where is
it? The past and the future clearly do not exist; the universe consists
only of the gap between them, the present.
How large is the gap between the past and the future? What is the duration of the present? A minute? A second? A nano-second?

Sayomi Hatake wrote:

shugo wrote:

NejiFan wrote:

shugo wrote:ok here you go heres the answer


If we suggest that what the man says is true, then we end in
contradiction: if the man’s claim that he is lying is true, then he is
lying, in which case what he says is false.
If we suggest that what the man says is false, then we are no better
off: if the man’s claim that he is lying is false, then he is not
lying, in which case what he says is true.
Both answers give rise to logical contradictions; it cannot be the
case either that what the man says is true or that what the man says is
false.
The Liar Paradox is sometimes referred to as “Epimenides’ Paradox”,
after the sixth-century B.C. Cretan who asserted that all Cretans are
liars. The apostle Paul makes reference to Epimenides in Titus 1:12,
writing, “It was one of them, their very own prophet who said, ‘Cretans
are always liars, vicious brutes, lazy gluttons.’”
Epimenides’ statement alone does not give rise to a paradox. What he
says can’t be true, for if Cretans are always liars, and he is a
Cretan, then he must be lying, in which case his statement is false.
His statement could be false however; it could be that Epimenides is
dishonest but that not all Cretans are liars.
Paul, though, excludes this dissolution of the paradox, proceeding
to say in the following verse, “This testimony is true.” This leaves
Paul asserting that Epimenides truly said that he (and all other
Cretans) are liars, which takes us back to Eubulides’ paradox above;
Paul cannot be right.

Omg, what!? Jeez, this stuff hurts my brain. xDDD

crazy huh whats worse is the paradox of divide by zero

oh i think Iv heard that one before