/int/ – No shittings during wörktime
„There is no place like home“

File (max. 4)
Return to
(optional)
  • Allowed file extensions (max. size 25 MB or specified)
    Images:  BMP, GIF, JPG, PNG, PSD   Videos:  FLV, MP4, WEBM  
    Archives:  7Z, RAR, ZIP   Audio:  FLAC, MP3, OGG, OPUS  
    Documents:  DJVU (50 MB), EPUB, MOBI, PDF (50 MB)  
  • Please read the Rules before posting.
  • Make sure you are familiar with the Guide to Anonymous Posting.

No. 28418
118 kB, 634 × 423
What other logical paradoxes are there than
-What I now say is a lie
-I know that I know nothing

Only true paradoxes, statements that logically contradict themselves, in ITT this thread please.
>>
No. 28421
I post on Ernstchan for serious discussion.
>>
No. 28422
The second one is not a paradox, but a false statement. The first one probably is the same, too.
>>
No. 28423
Please, learn to use Wikipedia, it's not that difficult.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paradoxes
>>
No. 28424
Does a set of all sets contain itself?
>>
No. 28425
>>28424
Yes. Any set contains itself and a zero set.
>>
No. 28427
150 kB, 1200 × 758
>>28424
This one was good I suppose
>>28423
Surprisingly enough, there was nothing interesting in this article
>>28422
If "what I now say is has the turth value false" was false, then it would be true, which is impossible, but the reverse is also impossible.

If you don't know anything (it's true that you know nothing) but are aware that you know nothing (and that is the only thing you know) then you do now something and the statement is false despite being true.

Both of these are great examples of an inescapable paradox
>>
No. 28428
>>28427
Nope. If you don't know anything, then any statement affirming that you know something will be false. "Paradox" solved.
>>
No. 28469
How does one tolerate the intolerant?
>>
No. 28478
>>28469
To be more precise:
"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."
  • Popper
>>
No. 28482
70 kB, 937 × 1171
A crocodile steals a mothers child.

The crocodile tells the mother that it will give back the child if she can tell in advance what the crocodile is planing to do with the child.

The mother says that the crocodile will keep the child.

What is the crocodile supposed to do?
>>
No. 28487
>>28482
If she's right, he gives it back. The crocodile plans on keeping the child because he assumes the woman will get the question wrong. He may want to eat the child, play with the child, adopt the child, etc, but they all hinge on the idea that he will keep the child. However, the woman guessing correctly means his plans have been interrupted. Plans aren't concrete, they're pure hypothetical intent.

If she's wrong (the crocodile doesn't plan to keep the child), the crocodile can just abandon the child in the middle of a swamp, or feed the child to another crocodile.

This all kind of hinges on how you define "keep" and "plan".
>>
No. 28489
>>28487
I have to correct myself.
Let's rather say "If she can tell in advance what the crocodile WILL do with the child".

In such situations I realize how blessed I am to know German. Way too hard to be precise in different languages.

Take this professional phrasing:
"The premise states that a crocodile, who has stolen a child, promises the mother that her child will be returned if and only if they correctly predict what the crocodile will do next."
>>
No. 28490
2,8 MB, 1280 × 720, 0:32
2,4 MB, 1280 × 720, 0:24
>>28483
A moderator tells a gay swede that he will be banned at noon on one weekday in the following week but that the ban will be a surprise to the gay swede. He will not know the day of the ban until the moderators assistant lets him know on /meta/ at noon that day.

Having reflected on his sentence, the gay swede draws the conclusion that he will escape the ban. His reasoning is in several parts. He begins by concluding that the "surprise ban" can't be on Friday, as if he hasn't been banned by Thursday, there is only one day left - and so it won't be a surprise if he's banned on Friday. Since the mods sentence stipulated that the ban would be a surprise to him, he concludes it cannot occur on Friday.

He then reasons that the surprise ban cannot be on Thursday either, because Friday has already been eliminated and if he hasn't been banned by Wednesday noon, the ban must occur on Thursday, making a Thursday banning not a surprise either. By similar reasoning, he concludes that the ban can also not occur on Wednesday, Tuesday or Monday. Joyfully he retires to his shitposts confident that the ban will not occur at all.

The next week, the moderators assistant tells the gay swede on /meta/ about the ban at noon on Wednesday — which, despite all the above, was an utter surprise to him. Everything the moderator said came true.
>>
No. 28538 Kontra
>>28490
every time I see these I just get disgusted and angry again all these years later. Any such society should truly be destroyed utterly by God.
>>
No. 28603 Kontra
>>28538
But you can't stop watching. Se you at pride, homo.
>>
No. 28615 Kontra
>>28538
Don't worry, reactionary forces all across Europe are gathering to end this kind of madness.
Whether it will work out or not doesn't matter, at some point there will already be enough of us to secede and let them rot in their cesspool.
>>
No. 29041
52 kB, 225 × 225
>>28603
lol rekt
>>
No. 29046 Kontra
>>28615
reactionary forces aren't any better either. In fact, all I could hope for is the two completely destroy each other. Both sides murdering each other until no one is left but varying strands of democratic and libertarian viewpoints is the best possible outcome. Nothing left but freedom loving people who value honesty and decency. Reactionaries should be lined up against a wall and shot just as much as the sick fucks who are the reason why that video even exists with those kids. As a matter of fact those two sides basically only exist because of each other and as a reaction to each other to mutually descend into further levels of faggotry. Let them both be utterly annihilated.