Alright guys, this isn't a riddle per se, but I thought it was the closest thing to what it really is.
The sentence below this is true.
The sentence above this is false.
So, what are your theories? I want to know the solution to this. is this simply an unsolvable paradox that defies human logic?
Or is it simply a very difficult conundrum?
I await your interesting replies. And I hope you don't think too hard about this. :P
I used to have it in my signature at almost any forum.
I even convinced my math teacher to try and solve it :P Without success, of course ;)
I have another one:
Hak says: ''Everyone who calls himself Hak, is a liar.''
And the simpler version of your paradox:
''This statement is false.''
Well, it depends on something. Is it saying "The below statement is true and the above statement is false"? If so, the entire thing's false. However, if it means "The below statement is true or the above statement is false", then that's something entirely different.
Those r so comfusing haha i got 1, " gormy tells the truth but gormys brother tells lies" haha
@Kudamon: It's 'and'. But, if the second statement is false, then the first can't be true. But for the second to be false, the first must be true.
I don't know, it sounds as if the paradox cancels itself out, if that makes any sense. The sentence isn't true because when it states the the sentence is false it comes after the statement saying that the sentence is true... I dunno, it's kinda hard to explain.
(01-02-2009 10:14 PM)Heartless Mercenary X Wrote: [ -> ]I don't know, it sounds as if the paradox cancels itself out, if that makes any sense. The sentence isn't true because when it states the the sentence is false it comes after the statement saying that the sentence is true... I dunno, it's kinda hard to explain.
...That's the whole point of the paradox :P
To be impossible to solve or explain...
(01-02-2009 05:04 PM)Rhincodon Typus Wrote: [ -> ]@Kudamon: It's 'and'. But, if the second statement is false, then the first can't be true. But for the second to be false, the first must be true.
No. "The sentence below this is true, the sentence above this is false". These two statements are independent of the other, and so one can be true and the other can be false. The first is false, the second is true. That's what I think. But even if they're independent of each other, the entire thing is false if it's saying "and" and one is true while the other is not.
Does that make any sense?
The two statements refer to each other. If the first is true, the second one is false. But if the second is false, then the first isn't true. However, if the first is false, then the second is true; therefore the first is true. But if that were the case, the second would be false, so the first is false... and so on...
(02-02-2009 01:59 AM)Rhincodon Typus Wrote: [ -> ]The two statements refer to each other. If the first is true, the second one is false. But if the second is false, then the first isn't true. However, if the first is false, then the second is true; therefore the first is true. But if that were the case, the second would be false, so the first is false... and so on...
They refer to each other, yes, but they're still independent of each other.