We learn from history that we do not learn from history.
Moderation in all things. 

. . . and furthermore . . .


IndistinctCredence wrote: Another good one: The word heterological is used to describe an adjective that does not describe itself; examples of heterological adjectives include "long", "unwritten" and "monosyllabic". An autological adjective on the other hand does describe itself; examples of autological adjectives include "English", "hyphenated", and "pentasyllabic". That being considered, is the adjective "heterological" a heterological adjective, or an autological adjective? Explanation: If the adjective heterological is in fact heterological in nature, then it would actually define itself, thus making it autological, and contradicting itself. If the adjective heterological is autological in nature, then it would in reality not define itself, thus making it heterological in nature, and contradicting itself. Ooh, that is a good one! Interesting how a whole lot of these paradoxes are essentially different applications of the 'this statement is false' contradiction. (Wait, surely the word 'hyphenated' isn't hyphenated ) 

Thus, the lord said: '...all you geeks ganged up on her and f**ked her!'


bebophitchhiker wrote: Jumbo shrimp Military intelligence New classic Lead from the rear More to follow They would be oxymora. 

Unattainable dreams are the best kind


Hahaha, yeah, I meant to say "unhyphenated". 

Disappointment is the most defining trait of this world.


Divide infinity by 0.


Sometimes people dance when they are supposed to sing.


tactical nuke




bebophitchhiker wrote: Jumbo shrimp Military intelligence New classic Lead from the rear More to follow Those are oxymorons..like pretty ugly, and my fav..original copy. Of course we can argue the difference. But a paradox is a statement that apparently contradicts itself and yet might be true. But as Oscar Wilde states “The way of paradoxes is the way of truth.” 



sjgriffiths wrote: My favourite kind of paradoxes would have to be temporal paradoxes, e.g. Grandfather, predestination, ontological etc. Then again, I'm fond of the Novikov selfconsistency principal, so that would refute the possibility of the Grandfather paradox... Although recently I just think of Portal 2 when it comes to paradoxes Ooh, I never considered that! Although thinking about it, I'm pretty sure that it would always equate to 0 rather than being actually paradoxical. EDIT: woah, sudden quantum mechanics alert! The probability that A is both true and false would technically always be 1 until it's observed... Mindboggling stuff. Using probability, yes, the statement is zero. Although, I may not know anything about quantum mechanics, but I think you mean "or" instead of "and". I don't believe in inconsistent systems, they have a habit of exploding. So for "this statement is false" it is true that a false statement is false. As I understand true statements come from true statements and false statements come from false statements IMO Paradoxes are 1. Bloody irritating 2. Good for exercising mental flexibility 

I am, thus, chocolate cake.


Nobodyofimportance wrote: IMO Paradoxes are 1. Bloody irritating 2. Good for exercising mental flexibility Hahahahaha, exactly why I love them. 

Disappointment is the most defining trait of this world.


Nobodyofimportance wrote: Using probability, yes, the statement is zero. Although, I may not know anything about quantum mechanics, but I think you mean "or" instead of "and". The weird thing is that it is AND! Before the result of an event is observed, both the true and false states exist simultaneously as a superposition, i.e. A ∩ A′ = 1. So, before observation (wave function collapse), the probability of any possible event is always 1, as all possible states exist at once. It's the Schrödinger's cat paradox. It's only when a result is observed that the usual rules of probability technically begin to apply. Then you could even start talking about parallel universes... Nobodyofimportance wrote: IMO Paradoxes are 1. Bloody irritating 2. Good for exercising mental flexibility Yep, this sums it up aha 

Thus, the lord said: '...all you geeks ganged up on her and f**ked her!'


sjgriffiths wrote: The weird thing is that it is AND! Before the result of an event is observed, both the true and false states exist simultaneously as a superposition, i.e. A ∩ A′ = 1. So, before observation (wave function collapse), the probability of any possible event is always 1, as all possible states exist at once. It's the Schrödinger's cat paradox. RAWR The symbol ∩ means intersection. the Symbol ∪ means union. You're using "and" to mean "both of" which is ∪ which is "or". Going by wikipedia, solutions to shrodinger's equation are similar to a linear combination of probabilities. The union of all probabilities is 1. As in A ∪ A′ = 1 A ∩ A′ = 0 the intersection of a set and its complement is 0 or, more correctly, ∅. This is fundamental. It won't change by bringing in quantum mechanics. Although I suppose I should find a paradox of some sort now... Ah, the St. Petersburg paradox. A casino offers the chance to play the following game A pot starts with a single dollar in it, a coin is flipped, and if heads you win the dollar, and the pot is then doubled, and coin flipped again. until tails comes up. If tails, the game is over, and you collect your winnings. Playing the game costs $32 Would you play? 

I am, thus, chocolate cake.


One of my favorite paradox sayings comes from the Bleach manga, and I'm pretty sure that it's supposed to be Ichigo thinking/saying it:
Unless I grip the sword, I cannot protect you. While gripping the sword, I cannot embrace you. 

Heed my words. My will creates your body, and your sword creates my destiny.


Any measurement is not exactly precise. We can only measure how much we can measure, and the measurement of an object depends on the tool we are using. Therefore, there is an infinite amount of measurements in the Universe. However, there can also be a measurement where everything in the Universe is in the same measurement. So, there is exactly one measurement. Yet, there is an infinite amount of measurements.


Sometimes people dance when they are supposed to sing.


Nobodyofimportance wrote: RAWR The symbol ∩ means intersection. the Symbol ∪ means union. You're using "and" to mean "both of" which is ∪ which is "or". Going by wikipedia, solutions to shrodinger's equation are similar to a linear combination of probabilities. The union of all probabilities is 1. As in A ∪ A′ = 1 A ∩ A′ = 0 the intersection of a set and its complement is 0 or, more correctly, ∅. This is fundamental. It won't change by bringing in quantum mechanics. Oh yes, of course that's what actually applies; sorry, I shouldn't have tried to say A ∩ A′ = 1 'cus obviously that's a plain fallacy in terms of set theory. No, quantum physics doesn't alter the fact that, in actuality, A ∩ A' = Ø. I was just considering how this fundamental law appears to form a contradiction in a situation wherein A and A' aren't actually mutually exclusive and in fact must both occur  obviously a fallacy in terms of not just set theory but common logic itself, but nevertheless what happens at a quantum level which has gone unobserved. Doesn't form any difference in reality though because A and A' do collapse into a state of mutual exclusivity as soon as that result has any observable relevance whatsoever, so the maths still lines up; the situation is purely theoretical with no actuality. In a way, the very act of attempting to apply 'A ∩ A′ = 1' itself causes it to cease to be true, as per classical logic... which incidentally reminds me of the 'this statements is false' paradox! 

Thus, the lord said: '...all you geeks ganged up on her and f**ked her!'


These are oxymorons, not paradoxes.
Also, strong weakness 

「GONE WRONG」 「GONE SEXUAL」
