Path: csiph.com!aioe.org!.POSTED.YRUjTkjtKgxB7kwNKnWsag.user.gioia.aioe.org!not-for-mail From: Louis Valence Newsgroups: comp.programming Subject: Re: Everything I say is false. Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2019 21:32:06 -0300 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 72 Message-ID: <86bltxdabd.fsf@example.com> References: <86v9svmn9m.fsf@example.com> <865zkrcrvh.fsf@example.com> <0ed80226-a4b8-4fcd-b84b-bc1418608ddb@googlegroups.com> <86k18mc9vs.fsf@example.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: YRUjTkjtKgxB7kwNKnWsag.user.gioia.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:pKwwQXmqxpqtmRZjWrxQQ12UUF4= Xref: csiph.com comp.programming:10275 Louis Valence writes: > Öö Tiib writes: > >> On Monday, 14 October 2019 17:40:38 UTC+3, Louis Valence wrote: >>> Richard Heathfield writes: >>> >>> > On 11/10/2019 14:20, Louis Valence wrote: >>> >> Richard Heathfield writes: >>> >> >>> >>> On 09/10/2019 20:10, mikegonta@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>>> Everything I say is false. >>> >>> >>> >>> That's not true. >>> >>> >>> >>> But *some* things you say are false, and the above is an example. >>> >> >>> >> Fun with logic. :-) >>> > >>> > Indeed. Here's an age-worn and very familiar paradox (bear with me here): >>> > >>> > Side A: >>> > +------------------------------+ >>> > + The sentence on the other + >>> > + side of this card is true. + >>> > +------------------------------+ >>> > >>> > Side B: >>> > +------------------------------+ >>> > + The sentence on the other + >>> > + side of this card is false. + >>> > +------------------------------+ >>> > >>> > If you now turn the card on its side and inspect the edge with a >>> > powerful microscope, you will see the following words, carved in >>> > carbon atoms individually arranged by people with far too much time >>> > and equipment on their hands: >>> > >>> > +------------------------------+ >>> > + Everything written on Side A + >>> > + and Side B is bloody stupid. + >>> > +------------------------------+ >>> > >>> > Paradox resolved! >>> >>> I'm slow, so bear with me. Either A is true or false. Assume it's >>> true. Then B must be true. But if B is true, A cannot be true. Okay. >>> Then assume A is false. Then B must be false. If B is false, then A >>> must be true. Contradiction. So we can't satisfy both statements >>> together with either truth-value. Alright. I see it. >>> >>> Here's perhaps my favorite version! >>> >>> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- >>> What is the probability that you'll randomly answer this question and >>> get it right? Check all answers that apply. >>> >>> (a) 25% (b) 50% (c) 60% (d) 25% >>> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- >>> >>> I think this one is really interesting. >> >> Since there are 16 different ways to check these >> answers randomly and only checking none is correct >> the probability is 6.25%. > > Cool. You didn't assume you should check only a single answer. You're > saying the question should be left blank. I think you're correct. It > is not, then, another case of Russell's Paradox. Well done! I've been distracted! The question says ``check all that apply''. Anyhow, well done!