Uni Stuff > Mathematics

where's the flaw?

<< < (2/2)

zzdfa:
Hmm i see. I'm not entirely convicned though. i don't think this is true:

"you will not be able to logically deduce" is like an implicit way of saying "you[man] are a stupid kent and cannot reason".

because in this case, the man was able to reason, yet he was still not able to deduce when he was to be killed (he thought he could, but he was wrong). i.e. it is possible for the man to be able to reason yet unable to deduce that he will be killed on the next day.

so  "you will not be able to logically deduce"  and "you are able to reason" are not mutually exclusive.

kamil9876:
lol i was just trying to add some colour. Just treat the two as synonymous(or disregard it completelty, simply replace "cannot reason" with "cannot deduce in this particular instance").

Summary:

"You will not be able to deduce" implies "Man will not think", since otherwise we get a contradiction(as shown by the addition of the next premise that he does actually think").

Why doesn't wiki have a whole article on this paradox: " is an even prime, ".

Simply it's the same thing(something was added that caused contradiction) although this one was more clever and is open to many interpretations(I agree that mine is not the only one and there are probably better ones) since it's vague in it's description(informal english language(unlike the original post)) and there are various combinations of premises that one can throw out in order to get rid of contradiction.



Also: wiki calls it a philosophical problem, and philosophers are ussually harder to please even on the most trivial of shit(only way to keep the subject alive) that is meaningless(see Wittgenstein's argument on why philosophy is shit) like Zeno's paradox and thompson's lamp.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page