- The next statement is true. - The previous statement is false.

Write out a program and find out.

File: 1494213280589.gif (3MB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 480x360px

>>8973567
only if you allow for self referential statements.
Here is a nice proof that OP is a fag

[math]\text{Let }Q\text{ be given by:}[/math]
[eqn]Q : = \left(Q \implies A\right)[/eqn][math]\text{Where }A\text{ is defined as the statement; } A := \text{OP is a fag}[/math]
[math]\text{Suppose } Q \text{ is false, then the implication given above holds.}[/math]
[math]\text{But this in turn must mean that }Q \text{ is true}[/math]
[math]\text{We resolve this contradiction by saying that }Q \text{ is not false, meaning } Q \text{ is true.} [/math]
[math]\text{But this must mean that }A \text{ is true!}[/math]
[math]\text{Therefore, OP is a fag.} \quad \blacksquare [/math]

File: ooooahh.jpg (50KB, 599x563px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 599x563px

>>8973567
Neither have EVIDENCE.

So neither are valid. If they were it would be proof by assertion and a circular argument fallacy.

And thats the last time i want to see this philosocrap on my /sci/.

>>8973567
[math]P \rightarrow \not P [/math]
[math]=\not P \ \not (\not P) [/math]
[math] \therefore \not (P \land \not P) [\math]
Wouldn't this be like vacuous falsehood/truth or something?

>>8973653
g dangit latex
If p then not p
equals not P or P
rewritten as not (p and not p)
oh but wait, isn't if then only false if the conclusion is true but the premise false?

But in this case it's both at the same time, so perhaps its some kind of contradiction

The only reason people think this is puzzling is because it's referential. When you lay out two mutually exclusive statements as true, it's obvious what a fucking pleb you are.

Both are true:
op is faggot
op is not faggot

Although is this particular case, some statements are more true than others.

>>8973567
Basically, this is what happens when choose axioms poorly.

Paradoxes are the symptoms of plebeian minds.

Metalanguage

Have you not read about the history of the formalizationeof matheratics OP? (Clearly).

Read about Russels paradox, it's essentially in a way the paradox you are proposing.

It's onf

>>8975283
This

Read Kripke

>>8973567
>says first statement is true
>asks if first statement is true
yes. the first statement gives us all the information we need, we can ignore everything else.

>>8973761
This. OP didn't do anything significantly more fancy than creating 2 axioms that say:

A: OP is gay.
B: OP is not gay.

Hurrdurr look at my paradox, such genius!

>>8973567
>- The next statement is true.
>- The previous statement is false.
>Is the first statement true? Or is it false?

You see, shit like this is why there is Zen.

No, it's even.