Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

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.

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?

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.

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.

How does "This statement is false. " committ the the logical fallacy Affirming the Consequent ?
There is not a need that logic should never fail, as there is a theorem which implies that there are questions that cannot be answered by logic.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
How does "This statement is false. " committ the the logical fallacy Affirming the Consequent ?
There is not a need that logic should never fail, as there is a theorem which implies that there are questions that cannot be answered by logic.

I illustrated this to you already. If presented as a set of conditional statements, "This statement is false," would be, "If A, then B; B; Therefore, A." Any argument following this form is invalid because it committs the logic fallacy of Affirming the Consequent.



There are arguments that defy logic:

John wishes to speak to whoever is in charge.

The person in charge is Steve.

Therefore John wishes to speak to Steve.

However, John may have a conflicting goal of avoiding Steve, meaning that the reasoned answer may be inapplicable to real life.

Arguments to which logic may not apply typically involve human behavior.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
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.

so there was no answer to the 2 "statements" like I thought eh?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If (A) this statement is false, then (B) it is a true statement; (B) This is a true statement; Therefore, (A) this statement is false.

A statement does not need to be true. In your first sentence you wrote " If this statement is false, then it is a true statement ", but I wrote "This statement is false. " You judged the wrong sentence.

Anyway, the Affirming the consequent fallacy, means that from a sentence in the form " If A, then B.", one cannot conclude " B. Therefore A. " If you write the statement like that, what would be :

- This statement(A) is false(B).
- Something is false(B).
- Therefore, its a statement(A).

But its not necessarily true, that "something" is a statement.

Anyway, that does not solve the problem. To solve the problem means you have to conclude in someway that the statement "This statement is false. " is true, or false. By using the 'Affirming the consequent' argument we just created other sentences which are fallacies, but they do not imply the truthhood or the falsehood of my first sentence.

But no problem its all confusing anyway, some mathematicians from the past thought it was not a paradox too. I just got it because I had logic at university, being physics my course. If this was not a true paradox, there would be no reason to create paraconsistent logic.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
A statement does not need to be true. In your first sentence you wrote " If this statement is false, then it is a true statement ", but I wrote "This statement is false. " You judged the wrong sentence.

Anyway, the Affirming the consequent fallacy, means that from a sentence in the form " If A, then B.", one cannot conclude " B. Therefore A. " If you write the statement like that, what would be :

- This statement(A) is false(B).
- Something is false(B).
- Therefore, its a statement(A).

But its not necessarily true, that "something" is a statement.

Anyway, that does not solve the problem. To solve the problem means you have to conclude in someway that the statement "This statement is false. " is true, or false. By using the 'Affirming the consequent' argument we just created other sentences which are fallacies, but they do not imply the truthhood or the falsehood of my first sentence.

But no problem its all confusing anyway, some mathematicians from the past thought it was not a paradox too. I just got it because I had logic at university, being physics my course. If this was not a true paradox, there would be no reason to create paraconsistent logic.

I did not judge the wrong statement. "This statement is false," makes three separate claims:

This is a statement.

This is a false statement.

By nature of being false, it is also true.

Before one can evaluate the truth or falsity of the premises, he must first determine whether or not the argument is valid. If the argument is not valid, the premises do not logically support the conclusion, making the truth value of the premises irrelevant.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I did not judge the wrong statement. "This statement is false," makes three separate claims:

This is a statement.

This is a false statement.

By nature of being false, it is also true.

Before one can evaluate the truth or falsity of the premises, he must first determine whether or not the argument is valid. If the argument is not valid, the premises do not logically support the conclusion, making the truth value of the premises irrelevant.

In logic everyone is free to make any statement he wants, a statement does not assume that it is true like you said. A statement is something that can be true or false. If in logic is assumed that anything must be true or false, so this statement must be true or false. What it is ? True or false ?

Originally posted by Atlantis001
In logic everyone is free to make any statement he wants, a statement does not assume that it is true like you said. A statement is something that can be true or false. If in logic is assumed that anything must be true or false, so this statement must be true or false. What it is ? True or false ?

Again, it is pointless to determine the truth value of an argument if the the argument is not valid; if the argument is not valid, the truth of the premises do not logically support the conclusion.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Again, it is pointless to determine the truth value of an argument if the the argument is not valid; if the argument is not valid, the truth of the premises do not logically support the conclusion.


A statement or proposition is not true or false, I never said that its "true" that "This statement is false." I just said " This statement is false. " Your 2sc and 3rd claims are equivalent.

In logic there is something called, principle of bivalence which states ; " For ANY proposition A, either A is true or A is false. " What my proposition is, true or false ? I must remember that is for ANY proposition.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
A statement or proposition is not true or false, I never said that its "true" that "This statement is false." I just said " This statement is false. " Your 2sc and 3rd claims are equivalent.

In logic there is something called, principle of bivalence which states ; " For ANY proposition A, either A is true or A is false. " What my proposition is, true or false ? I must remember that is for ANY proposition.

The Principle of Bivalence is not universally applicable; sometimes the truth value of a proposition cannot be determined, and other times a propositon may have an indeterminate truth value.

In logic it is assumed that every sentence is either true or false !!!

If you try to fail and you succeed, what does that make you??

That's not a paradox, it is just semantics and a relative meaning of the term 'failure'- that what is failure for some is success from the point of view of others.

The actual process is as simple as this- if you wanted outcome A and got outcome B, you failed. That by other criteria it could be seen as a success is not relevant.

It's a paradox because either "faliure" or "winner" is applicable, but which one is "more correct"?

Err, no it isn't. As I say- relative meanings. No paradox.

All I can really do is point you to my post again.

Originally posted by DanZeke25
If you try to fail, but you succeed, which have you done?
You failed at failing. You strived for a particular outcome and did not reach it.

Regarding failing at failing, it depends. If a student tries to fail at a math test and fails, then he has succeeded at failing the math test and failed the math test; no contradiction. If you say he tries to fail in some generic sense, it's a gibberish question. You can't define whether somebody has failed or succeeded unless you have some parameters to measure it by.



Well, here's how I see it: we have two statements; we can rephrase it as, "The second part of this statement is true, and the first part of this statement is false"

(2nd true) ^ (1st false)

Assume that this is a true statement; then the second statement is true, the first statement is false, and the second statement is false.

So if (2nd true) ^ (1st false), then (2nd true) ^ -(2nd true).

Statements of the form A ^ -A are false.

So if (2nd true) ^ (1st false) is true, a false statement is also true; therefore it is not true that (2nd true) ^ (1st false), and

"The below sentence is true.

The above sentence is false."

simply describes a situation that is by its nature impossible, like "It is raining and it is not raining." I don't see the problem; so "The below statement is true" and "The above statement is false" are mutually contradictory; that doesn't make it a paradox, it makes it false, in the same way that "It is raining and it is not raining" is false.

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 your goal is to fail and you reach that goal, you have achieved something. duhr.

Originally posted by Gregory
Regarding failing at failing, it depends. If a student tries to fail at a math test and fails, then he has succeeded at failing the math test and failed the math test; no contradiction. If you say he tries to fail in some generic sense, it's a gibberish question. You can't define whether somebody has failed or succeeded unless you have some parameters to measure it by.



Well, here's how I see it: we have two statements; we can rephrase it as, "The second part of this statement is true, and the first part of this statement is false"

(2nd true) ^ (1st false)

Assume that this is a true statement; then the second statement is true, the first statement is false, and the second statement is false.

So if (2nd true) ^ (1st false), then (2nd true) ^ -(2nd true).

Statements of the form A ^ -A are false.

So if (2nd true) ^ (1st false) is true, a false statement is also true; therefore it is not true that (2nd true) ^ (1st false), and

"The below sentence is true.

The above sentence is false."

simply describes a situation that is by its nature impossible, like "It is raining and it is not raining." I don't see the problem; so "The below statement is true" and "The above statement is false" are mutually contradictory; that doesn't make it a paradox, it makes it false, in the same way that "It is raining and it is not raining" is false. What about "This statement is false."?

I've heard it argued that each statement asserts its own truth. So, "The following statement is true: it is raining" contains exactly the same information as: "It is raining." So "This statement is false" contains the same information as "The following statement is true: this statement is false." Since that contains the assertion and negation of the same statement, it is false.

Originally posted by Gregory
I've heard it argued that each statement asserts its own truth. So, "The following statement is true: it is raining" contains exactly the same information as: "It is raining." So "This statement is false" contains the same information as "The following statement is true: this statement is false." Since that contains the assertion and negation of the same statement, it is false. But it has to be true to be false, and if it's false, it's not false, but true...making it false.

And it can't be a lie, because that's false, making it true.

If the statement includes both the components, "this statement is false" and "this statement is true" then it is false. No paradox; statements asserting the truth of both something and it's negation (it is raining and it is not raining; this statement is false and this statement is true" are false by there nature.

Originally posted by Gregory
If the statement includes both the components, "this statement is false" and "this statement is true" then it is false. No paradox; statements asserting the truth of both something and it's negation (it is raining and it is not raining; this statement is false and this statement is true" are false by there nature. Or do you mean the assertion that "This statement is false." is true, is a false assertion? If so, then yeah, that makes sense.

its more logical to break it down into 2 different things. the intention, and the actual action.

in the action performed, you FAILED.

in your INTENTION of TRYING to fail, you succeeded. simple, it just related to two different things.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
its more logical to break it down into 2 different things. the intention, and the actual action.

in the action performed, you FAILED.

in your INTENTION of TRYING to fail, you succeeded. simple, it just related to two different things. You grossly misread.