Categories
Vanilla 1.1.4 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
-
- CommentTimeJul 1st 2009
Nope. It stops right there. It's pure formal logic.
B=(A=false)
A=(B=false)
A=((A=false) = false) -> A = True (because "A= False"is false)
B=(true=false) -> B = Untrue (because true cannot be false)
It's a semi-paradox: it's solvable.'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn -
- CommentTimeJul 1st 2009
(I wonder if anyone can spot the flaw. )'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn -
- CommentTimeJul 1st 2009
If i knew what the fudge you were talking about......Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders. -
- CommentTimeJul 1st 2009
The only thing I got was a NullPointerException.Kazoo -
- CommentTimeJul 1st 2009
Christodoulides wrote
If i knew what the fudge you were talking about......
You could always ask William...'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn -
- CommentTimeJul 1st 2009
Bregt wrote
The only thing I got was a NullPointerException.
WHAT did I tell you about trying to divide by zero?
You dang near destroyed the Universe again!'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn -
- CommentTimeJul 1st 2009 edited
Martijn wrote
(I wonder if anyone can spot the flaw. )
Having never been too savvy with mathematics, I can't say it's immediately obvious. (Although the last equation just don't sit right me, it don't sit right with me. )
What I can't get out of my head is if you end up with any answer, it just starts the whole system off again, unless the actual propositions themselves change because of the process involved? All I see is an infinite regress. -
- CommentTimeJul 1st 2009
Well, the thing is that it's not mathematical.
It doesn't regress af infinitum in my solution (not sure how you got that?).
What doesn't fit is my second deduction:B=(true=false) -> B = Untrue (because true cannot be false)
It's a deduction, but not a logical one as the mere proposition "true=false" is not false per se.
In fact, a far more correct statement is that it cannot be.
This is something that cannot be easily solved in formal logic, though I gather one very smart philosopher invented a (I can't remember the proper name...I'd have to look that up) sort of dualistic nature, where a statement in this reality can both be true AND untrue at the same time.
Obviously this is a guy just waiting to get run over at the next zebra crossing.'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn -
- CommentTimeJul 1st 2009
Nope, I see what you mean now.
D'oh.
"There is at least one true proposition."
Call this proposition A.
Is A necessarily true? Suppose I contend A is false.
Call this proposition B: "A is false."
But if A is false, so is B, because B is a proposition, and if A is false there are no true propositions. So A must be true. It is therefore logically impossible for there to exist no true propositions.
Simple. -
- CommentTimeJul 1st 2009
Anyway, getting back on track.
Is Sunil a jerk, William? -
- CommentTimeJul 1st 2009
James Horner?I am extremely serious. -
- CommentTimeJul 1st 2009
Martijn wrote
William, should Bregt take a pill?
Or is it too late?
(I realize those are two questions. If it's easier I will happily label the first question 'Proposition A', just to avoid confusion).
He could take a pill. But it may be too late. -
- CommentTimeJul 1st 2009
Steven wrote
Simple.
...except you've just outlined a completely different logical frame, which is not a paradox at all.
But as I can see D. starting to go into meltdown from here, it's probably better left unexplored.
Don't you think so, William?'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn -
- CommentTimeJul 1st 2009
Martijn wrote
Don't you think so, William?
Yes. -
- CommentTimeJul 1st 2009
Thank you William.
Good night.'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn -
- CommentTimeJul 1st 2009
William, you're racing a beam of light. It travels 670,000,000mph, you are traveling at 669,999,999mph. Would the light appear to overtake you at 1mph?
.... -
- CommentTimeJul 1st 2009
MOST. SURRREALISTIC.THREAD. EVER.Anything with an orchestra or with a choir....at some point will reach you -
- CommentTimeJul 1st 2009
Nah. -
- CommentTimeJul 1st 2009 edited
Martijn wrote
Thank you William.
Good night.
You're welcome. Goodnight. -
- CommentTimeJul 1st 2009
Steven wrote
William, you're racing a beam of light. It travels 670,000,000mph, you are traveling at 669,999,999mph. Would the light appear to overtake you at 1mph?
....
Hmmm... Gimme awhile for this one. -
- CommentTimeJul 1st 2009
Don't worry, I was kind enough to give you a Get Out Of Jail Free card in that you only have to say "no." -
- CommentTimeJul 1st 2009
-
- CommentAuthorTimmer
- CommentTimeJul 2nd 2009 edited
Christodoulides wrote
MY GOD. DELETE THE FRIGGIN THREAD!
^
DELETE. THIS. POST.On Friday I ate a lot of dust and appeared orange near the end of the day ~ Bregt -
- CommentAuthorfranz_conrad
- CommentTimeJul 2nd 2009
I have a question for William:
When posting in the 'Now Playing' thread, when is it appropriate to elaborate in your opinions of a score that you are currently listening to, and when is it appropriate to simply name the object of aural attention?A butterfly thinks therefore I am -
- CommentTimeJul 2nd 2009
franz_conrad wrote
I have a question for William:
When posting in the 'Now Playing' thread, when is it appropriate to elaborate in your opinions of a score that you are currently listening to, and when is it appropriate to simply name the object of aural attention?
Hmmm... It depends on how much of the score you have listened to before the time of posting. One cannot judge a score based on the first note. (I think?) -
- CommentTimeJul 2nd 2009
William wrote
franz_conrad wrote
I have a question for William:
When posting in the 'Now Playing' thread, when is it appropriate to elaborate in your opinions of a score that you are currently listening to, and when is it appropriate to simply name the object of aural attention?
Hmmm... It depends on how much of the score you have listened to before the time of posting. One cannot judge a score based on the first note. (I think?)
*cough* The Dark Knight *cough*Anything with an orchestra or with a choir....at some point will reach you -
- CommentTimeJul 2nd 2009
Marselus wrote
William wrote
franz_conrad wrote
I have a question for William:
When posting in the 'Now Playing' thread, when is it appropriate to elaborate in your opinions of a score that you are currently listening to, and when is it appropriate to simply name the object of aural attention?
Hmmm... It depends on how much of the score you have listened to before the time of posting. One cannot judge a score based on the first note. (I think?)
*cough* The Dark Knight *cough*
Judge it in a good way, or a bad way? -
- CommentTimeJul 2nd 2009 edited
I too have a question:
I wonder, how many hints does it take for someone to finally embrace common sense -evidently the ultimate oxymoron- and start using the quote function in a more sensible way? I'm very curious to know. -
- CommentTimeJul 2nd 2009
Steven wrote
I too have a question:
I wonder, how many hints does it take for someone to finally embrace common sense -evidently the ultimate oxymoron- and start using the quote function in a more sensible way? I'm very curious to know.
It depends which user(s) in particular you are talking about... -
- CommentTimeJul 2nd 2009
There´s even a (closed yet sticky) thread about this issue.Anything with an orchestra or with a choir....at some point will reach you