If you try to fail....

If you try to fail, but you succeed, which have you done?

The below sentence is true.

The above sentence is false.

^^I'd like to see someone explain that one.

You seen to be missing a subject. If you try to fail a test, but you pass it. You have fail to fail but succeed to pass the test.

You are trying to make a paradox. Try this one...

I draw a circle and write inside that circle "everything in this circle is a lie".

Now that is a paradox.

Thats a problem that cannot be solved. There is matemathical studies about these type of paradoxies, and I created a thread about this entitled "Can everything be explained by the use of logic ?". And your question cannot be answered by the use of logic, not that it is a dumb question, but it is.. lets say beyond it. I like that word.... "beyond"

Originally posted by Atlantis001
Thats a problem that cannot be solved. There is matemathical studies about these type of paradoxies, and I created a thread about this entitled "Can everything be explained by the use of logic ?". And your question cannot be answered by the use of logic, not that it is a dumb question, but it is.. lets say beyond it. I like that word.... "beyond"

Ya, a paradox is a good example where logic fails.

Are there paradoxes in the real world?

I don't think there is any.

Or maybe thats not possible to succeed in something(ha, ha) ! That will explain why things always go wrong ! Like in Murphy´s law.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
Or maybe thats not possible to succeed in something(ha, ha) ! That will explain why things always go wrong ! Like in Murphy´s law.

Are you suggesting that paradoxes are allowed in nature? That is radical, almost sounds like something I would come up with.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Are you suggesting that paradoxes are allowed in nature? That is radical, almost sounds like something I would come up with.

There will be no paradoxes in nature. In order for that paradox to be a paradox, one must succeed in failing. If its not possible to succeed then that paradox will not exist. Anyway, that not need to be true. What is that you would come up with ?

Originally posted by Atlantis001
There will be no paradoxes in nature. In order for that paradox to be a paradox, one must succeed in failing. If its not possible to succeed then that paradox will not exist. Anyway, that not need to be true. What is that you would come up with ?

Please review the above post and edit.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Please review the above post and edit.

Oops... sorry I mispoke before, I thought that if we suppose that is not possible to succeed in "failing", then there will not be a paradox, but even if we fail, the paradox still exist. Anyway, what is that you would come up with ?

Originally posted by Atlantis001
Oops... sorry I mispoke before, I thought that if we suppose that is not possible to succeed in "failing", then there will not be a paradox, but even if we fail, the paradox still exist. Anyway, what is that you would come up with ?

The passable paradoxes caused by time trail, faster than light travel and others.

Originally posted by DanZeke25
If you try to fail, but you succeed, which have you done?

The below sentence is true.

The above sentence is false.

^^I'd like to see someone explain that one.

if you try to fail , but succeed.. then that means you have failed (which was your goal to begin with)...

the two sentences are a bit wierd though.. first sentence says the 2nd is true.. which the 2nd says the first is full of crap.. what would be the goal of saying the first one is false?

Originally posted by SaTsuJiN
if you try to fail , but succeed.. then that means you have failed (which was your goal to begin with)...

the two sentences are a bit wierd though.. first sentence says the 2nd is true.. which the 2nd says the first is full of crap.. what would be the goal of saying the first one is false?

No... thats not crap, it is a real problem. There are scientific works about that. Mathematics say that problems like this really exist, they are real paradoxes and cannot be answered by logic itself. Not because they don´t make sense, but because logic is imcomplete and cannot answer everything.

I was paraphrasing it in a modern context (i.e. putting it into my own words), instead of saying

second sentence is false. (where I said "first sentence says the 2nd is true"😉

first sentence is true. (where I said "the 2nd sentence says the first is full of crap" you know.. "false" ?)

I then followed up with a question as to what the purpose of stating the first sentence to be 'false' was.. because it indeed does not make sense.. wouldnt we have to be talking about 'something'.. some kind of topic? and 'then' say this ones true and this ones false.. where upon we'd ask which is the correct statement?

but you spent all that time 'correcting' me instead of trying to add a helpful solution.. tsk tsk..

Originally posted by DanZeke25
The below sentence is true.

The above sentence is false.

^^I'd like to see someone explain that one.

Pssh. .

This sentence is false.

is all you need.

Originally posted by SaTsuJiN
I was paraphrasing it in a modern context (i.e. putting it into my own words), instead of saying

second sentence is false. (where I said "first sentence says the 2nd is true"😉

first sentence is true. (where I said "the 2nd sentence says the first is full of crap" you know.. "false" ?)

I then followed up with a question as to what the purpose of stating the first sentence to be 'false' was.. because it indeed does not make sense.. wouldnt we have to be talking about 'something'.. some kind of topic? and 'then' say this ones true and this ones false.. where upon we'd ask which is the correct statement?

but you spent all that time 'correcting' me instead of trying to add a helpful solution.. tsk tsk..

I didn´t meant to offend you. Sorry if I did. I was arguing that the question does make sense, it is a real scientific problem. The topic that you was talking about, is the sentence itself, and it can be a topic.
In mathemathics there is a theorem which says that there are questions that cannot be answered by logic. Some books even use this example to exemplify the theorem.

it appears creshosk got it correct though (at least through a logical standpoint)

A true paradox would be : " This statement is false. "

If its true, then it is false.
If its false, then it must be true.

That is a valid statement, and do not have a solution.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Ya, a paradox is a good example where logic fails.

Are there paradoxes in the real world?

I don't think there is any.

A paradox is not an example of where logic fails, but where logic succeeds; paradoxes help us identify what is real.

For example, is it possible for an omnipotent being to create an object so heavy that even he cannot lift it?

If he cannot create such an object, he is not omnipotent; If he can create such an object, but cannot lift it, he is not omnipotent. Clearly the task is impossible.

This paradox does not illustrate the nature of omnipotence. Rather, it illustrates that omnipotence as a characteristic does not exist.

Its simple:

You try , you fail
you try again , you fail again .

The only real failure is when when you stop trying 😄

The statement, "If one attempts to fail, but instead succeeds," is not a paradox, but a pun. Clearly, the conclusion is, "He has failed at his attempt to fail."

The statements, "Everything in this circle is a lie," and "This statement is false," committ the logic fallacy of Affirming the Consequent.

If presented as a set of conditional statements, the argument would be, "If A, then B; B; Therefore, A." Any argument following this form is invalid.