Paradoxes: temporal, logical and otherwise.

Recommended Videos

WolfThomas

Man must have a code.
Dec 21, 2007
5,291
0
0
RikSharp said:
Halceon said:
All can add is catch-22, which is essentially the same thing.
catch 22 is lame.
i must be insane to want to fly up there but if i'm insane, i cant fly up there. therefore i'm not insane and can fly up there, etc, etc
missing the obvious: you could fly up there and not want to, making you both fly and not insane.
Not really, it's a bit different in the book. It was the only way to get out of flying is to be insane. But to request to be transferred/grounded because of insanity proves your sane enough to be aware of your cognitive state and therefore fit to fly.
 

Tucker154

New member
Jul 20, 2009
532
0
0
darthotaku said:
What would happen if you went back in time and killed your previous self?
Then you would never have been able to go back in time to kill yourself,therefore,still alive.

And thank you for reminding me of the grandfather paradox!

If you went back in time and killed your grandfather, your mother or father would have never been born making it you would have never been born to be able to kill your grandfather making it so you would be born to be able to kill yourself and,well, I guess you should figure out where this goes.
 

Maze1125

New member
Oct 14, 2008
1,679
0
0
The_root_of_all_evil said:
[I know I'm telling the truth (Bsc Hons. Software Engineeering btw), but you don't.
Good for you.

Do you want to know what my degree is in?
Maths.

Do you want to know where I got it from?
Oxford.

Do you want to know how much you actually understand what you're claiming to know about?
Fuck all.

0.999... = 1
That is fact, pure and simple.
There is no difference if you do it in pure maths or statistical maths, decimals do not terminate at some finite point on the assumption that they don't matter after that and ".0 recurring 1" is some nonsensical construct you just made up to try and prove your point.
 

Lullabye

New member
Oct 23, 2008
4,424
0
0
SlasherX said:
If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound dont know if anyone else did this yet to lazy to read whole thread
Yes it does.
However, unobserved, the sound may travel everywhere at once.
yay quantum mechanics!
 

Maze1125

New member
Oct 14, 2008
1,679
0
0
The_root_of_all_evil said:
Maze1125 said:
0.999... = 1
That is fact, pure and simple.
Equivalent to, not equal to. If you've any proof of your PoV, I'd be happy to hear it - but simply stating it as a fact doesn't make it so.
I gave you an entire thread full of proofs.

But hey, seen as you didn't bother to read my post last time. Here [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.85789-Interesting-fact-0-999-1] it is again.

I'll even copy the most rigorous out for you:


An infinite decimal is defined to be:
lim(as n->infinity)sum(from k=1 to n) (a_k * 1/10^k)
where a_k is the kth digit of the decimal.

Therefore, 0.999... is defined to be:
lim(as n->infinity)sum(from k=1 to n) (9 * 1/10^k)
So all we need to do is show that that is equal to one.
Which is true iff for all e>0 there exists an N such that for all n>N |1 - sum(from k=1 to n) (9 * 1/10^k)| < e

Now sum(from k=1 to n) (9 * 1/10^k) is a finite sum, and so we can calculate that
|1 - sum(from k=1 to n) (9 * 1/10^k)| = |1/10^n|

So we need to show that for all e>0 there exists an N such that for all n>N |1/10^n| =1 then |1/10^n| e>0, then let N = 1/e and then |1/10^n| N

Hence the claim that, for all e>0 there exists an N such that for all n>N |1 - sum(from k=1 to n) (9 * 1/10^k)| < e, is true.
So, by the definition of a limit, lim(as n->infinity)sum(from k=1 to n) (9 * 1/10^k) = 1
Therefore, by the definition of infinite decimals, 0.999... = 1

QED
 

The Seldom Seen Kid

New member
Apr 28, 2010
380
0
0
Czargent Sane said:
time LINE? *sigh* time does not go in lines. it goes in circles. that is why clocks are ROUND
lolwut.

I don't understand your logic. Please elaborate.

Just to clear things up, you're basing the theoretical physical shape of time based on a clock? What's the relation? And if we accept the whole time as a circle hypothesis, you're saying that if I wait long enough I will eventually end up at the exact same point I started waiting? Essentially having negated the entire time I have waited. So, I would be eternally young in that case.
Clocks, I presume, are only in circles because it makes it easier and less of a manufacturing mindfuck. If you made it in a straight line, you'd have to construct that line to last until eternity, and then sell it. Circles reset, I think that's the only reason to design them that way.

OT: My favorite has already been ninja'd.

"The following statement is true.
The previous statement is false."
 

Olrod

New member
Feb 11, 2010
861
0
0
The_root_of_all_evil said:
Zeno's Paradox


Beautifully concise and seemingly impenetrable.
That would mean that Achilles is slowing down until he becomes equal in speed to the tortoise.

If Achilles is running at a constant speed and not slowing down, then f**k you Zeno. :D
 

Zaverexus

New member
Jul 5, 2010
934
0
0
Androgeus said:
Zaverexus said:
There is one barber in a town who cuts the hair of everyone who does not cut their own hair. Who cuts the barber's hair?
Himself, you never said that he only cuts everyone else's hair.
That's the paradox. The barber cuts the hair of everyone who does not cut their own hair. So therefor if someone cuts their own hair he does not cut it. So if he cuts his own hair he can't cut his hair... and on and on
 

Death God

New member
Jul 6, 2010
1,751
0
0
The whole time travel thing. If you go back into the past and kill someone, then in the future, nothing has changed? Because you were intended to go back in time to kill said person. Therefore said person isn't dead because she's still in the future? Nothing makes sense!
 

fletch_talon

Elite Member
Nov 6, 2008
1,461
0
41
Kjakings said:
Edit: if anybody mentions the chicken and the egg, I'll be forced to kill you: evolution provides us with the answer: the creature we consider 'chicken' was obviously hatched out of an egg by its evolutionary ancestor divergant enough to NOT be considered 'chicken.' Therefore, the egg was first.
Ah, but that depends on how you define a chicken egg.
Is a chicken egg an egg with a chicken inside, or an egg laid by a chicken?
I say both are requirements for a chicken egg.
Surely the first chicken egg would have to be the first egg to be laid by a chicken and thus contain a chicken. As such, the chicken had to exist in order to lay a chicken egg.

I believe the egg you describe as having come first, is not a chicken egg at all, but rather the egg of a "pre-chicken" which contained a mutated offspring which we now refer to as a chicken.

Zaverexus said:
Androgeus said:
Zaverexus said:
There is one barber in a town who onlycuts the hair of everyone who does not cut their own hair. Who cuts the barber's hair?
Himself, you never said that he only cuts everyone else's hair.
That's the paradox. The barber cuts the hair of everyone who does not cut their own hair. So therefor if someone cuts their own hair he does not cut it. So if he cuts his own hair he can't cut his hair... and on and on
You didn't say he "only" cuts the hair of everyone who does not cut their own hair. I've added it in bold for you.
 

The_Amazing_G

New member
Sep 13, 2009
193
0
0
My favorite:
Which is better, eternal happiness or a ham sandwich? It would appear that eternal happiness is better, but this is really not so! After all, nothing is better than eternal happiness, and a ham sandwich is certainly better than nothing. Therefore a ham sandwich is better than eternal happiness.
 

The_Amazing_G

New member
Sep 13, 2009
193
0
0
As for the chicken in the egg:
The chicken has to be first, becasue if there is not a chicken to sit on the egg to keep it warm, the egg will not hatch.

HA!!!
 

Phoenixmgs_v1legacy

Muse of Fate
Sep 1, 2010
4,691
0
0
Kjakings said:
Edit: if anybody mentions the chicken and the egg, I'll be forced to kill you: evolution provides us with the answer: the creature we consider 'chicken' was obviously hatched out of an egg by its evolutionary ancestor divergant enough to NOT be considered 'chicken.' Therefore, the egg was first.
The chicken came first.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/07/14/2010-07-14_which_came_first_the_chicken_or_the_egg_the_chicken_researchers_say.html