/sci/ - Science & Math

The one that shows that your best friend is somewhere else.

Go up to your friend. Ask them:

1) Are you on Mars? Them: No.
2) Are you in Antarctica? Them: No.
3) Are you at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean? Them: No

Well, you must be somewhere else!

I know this sounds really stupid, but could you build that building with the stairs like that?

>>3369709

You might be able to build it to LOOK like that, from the right angle, but you can't actually have infinite stairs.

>>3369709
No, they wouldn't be stairs, more like ridges.

Paradoxes are always based on ambigous use of language.

>>3369709
make the stairs at a angleso that you're not actually climbing

>>3369720
Or any irrelevant reference point.

See Zeno's paradox which assumes that for the speed of two runners the second one must be a percentage of that of the first.

I don't believe in true paradoxes.

>>3369720

Define S := {x | x is not in x}
Does S contain S?

This is Russell's paradox. It doesn't seem to use ambiguous language.

>>3369720
>Paradoxes are always based on flawed use of thought.

fix'd

The fact that karyotypic megaevolution works at all.
(google it; example: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/168/3937/1364.short )

The fact that sexed organisms are common despite the fact that it halves the genetic contribution of individuals to the next generation. It makes sense to maintain it as a trait, but it's origins aren't well understood which is weird for something so common.

(Not really paradoxes; animated .gif related)

I heard if you hate a paradox enough it will simply go away.

I saw a paradox having sex once. Later, one of them laid eggs.

>>3369748
Just wait until /sci/ tells you that evolution of sex is not mysterious and that we have it figured out

>>3369741
That would just imply set S doesn't exist.

Like the barber paradox:

Suppose there is a barber.
He shaves everyone that doesn't shave himself.
Does he shave himself?

>Suppose there is a barber.
^^^ Where we went wrong. Assumption is false.
>He shaves everyone that doesn't shave himself.
>Does he shave himself?

Godel's incompleteness theorem, to whatever extent it can be considered paradoxical.

Bump

>>3369776
That's not really how it works...

If a chicken had lips, could it whistle?

>>3369787
Really?

Such a barber could not exist. There is no such thing as a barber that shaves only people who don't shave themselves. He can't exist.

Just like the set S cannot exist. There is no such thing as a set that contains all sets that do not contain themselves.

>>3369787
Thanks for your valuable contribution to the thread.

>>3369801

Depends on how the muscle structure changes with the inclusion of "lips".

The thing about paradoxes is that they shouldn't really even be acknowledged. Once they are discovered they ought to truly be discarded. Trying to reason through a paradox is like trying to put yourself in the place of a fish or a book. It's just purely beyond human comprehension. I suppose that, though is why humans find them so fascinating.

Trying to understand something larger than themselves. So I guess the paradox I find most enjoyable is the understanding paradox. Why humans try to understand what is literally impossible for them to do so.

>>3369709
No. Stairs only look that way as the human eyes and brain can only interpret so many of those correlating angles at any given time.

If we had a brain or set of eyes that could translate all of the given depths of fields then it would be a very obvious shape.

>>3369787
A = B && A != B
omg paradox!!!!!!

>>3369877
That's not a paradox; it's just a false statement.

4chan is a pretty fucked up paradox

>>3369891
No it's not, clearly A equals B and doesn't equal B, so it's a paradox.
The only valid conclusion is, those properties cannot describe A, just like the barber's shavings cannot validly describe the barber, and the sets descriptions cannot apply to it.

>>3369917
Yeah exactly, there's a set and defined contradiction. Thus: Paradox.

I still don't understand how the "liar" paradox is resolved.

This sentence is false.

>>3369928
Which brings me make to my satirical,
Assume A, where a = b and a != b.
Definition and defined contradiction. It's a paradox, it's just fucking retarded, not unlike most paradoxes.

If you try to fail, but you succeed, which have you done?


I believe you have failed because your ultimate goal was to fail, but you failed at doing so. So i guess you succeeded. Wait, shit.

banach tarski

also, construction in OPs pic is impossible. atiyah singer index theorem

holy trinity. Jesus is part of holy trinity that when combined makes god. But Jesus wasn't around at the beginning of time, so therefore God couldn't exist until Jesus was born... but Jesus couldn't of been born with out God.

So for Jesus to be born, God (Jesus) would have to impregnate his mother and then committed suicide on the cross as it was God's (Jesus's) divine will... and well, I'm not religious but I'm sure both of those things are sins

>>3369936
>paradox
>resolution
Here's a hint for you: If it has a resolution, it is not a paradox.

TIME PARADOX

>>3369928
That just says that paradoxes are things that are constructed to not exist.

1) There exists a cat. [True]
2) This cat eats mice. [True]
3) This cat does not eat mice. [True]

Statement 2 follows from Statement 1. If there did not exist a cat, surely there would not exist a cat that eats mice.

Statement 3 follows from Statement 1 as well. If there did not exist a cat, surely there would not exist a cat that doesn't eat mice.

Statements 2 and 3 contradict each other. Therefore, the premise is not true. Statement 1 is false. Such a cat does not exist.

>>3369936
That sentence doesn't exist.

There is no such thing as a sentence that claims itself to be false.

>>3369936
You sir, probably should see this post
>>3369855

Paradoxes are only paradoxical because of flaws in the brain's method of interpreting certain things. Paradoxes aren't paradoxes because reality can't be paradoxical. The paradox is that we will never know reality because we can only perceive in paradoxical terms.

>>3369943
Fuck off tripfag.

THIS.. SENTENCE... IS.... FALSE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVinP2Y0iLQ

>>3369964
Fuck off faggot. You can't hold a reasonable discussion while anonymous.

if the opposite of con is pro, then the opposite of consitution is...

>>3369971
0/10 You Just Butthurt

>>3369960
Because we ascribe our cognitive abilities to the "laws" of reality we won't ever be able to comprehend paradoxes.

I suppose it's why so many humans alter their consciousness. Trying to break from the laws to perceive the world in a more interesting fashion.

>>3369972
That's not a paradox, that's just a dumbass fucking pun.

>>3369943
Simpson's paradox.

It has a clear resolution if you're educated in elementary statistics. It's all sorts of fucked up crazy if you don't.

Idiot.

>>3369957
What?

He just wrote that sentence. Is this some nihilist crap?

>>3369983
Hahaha. Of course not. No philosophy here.
Just definitions and axioms.

A sentence is a set of words that is complete in itself.

To say:
"This sentence is false."

Is making an axiom that "that group of words" forms a sentence. That is, it's a group of words that is complete in itself.

By assuming that group of words is actually a sentence, we then derive the meaning of the sentence. It's referring to itself saying that it's actually false. This contradicts the first assumption of validity about the group of words.

Therefore, those words do not form a sentence as those words are not complete in themselves.

Which definition of paradox are we talking about here?
From merriam webster:
>a : a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true
>b : a self-contradictory statement that at first seems true
>c : an argument that apparently derives self-contradictory conclusions by valid deduction from acceptable premises

Other good apparent paradoxes can be found by searching your library or amazon for "counterexamples in"

>>3370015
Yeah they do. They imply something that is obviously false.

Semantics and all that nonsense are only good for circlejerking petty bs.

>>3370037
Assuming they form a sentence, we now have a statement asserting that some thing has some property. In this case, "This sentence" has the property, "false". The sentence can not be both true and false, so our original assumption must be false. That is, the group of words formed a sentence.

>>3369960
prove it

that's right

you can't

you're just a stupid 20 something faggot that browses /sci/

eat shit, FUCK YOU

>>3370084
>so our original assumption must be false. That is, the group of words formed a sentence.

It forms a sentence; the statement the sentence forms, however, is paradoxical.

>>3371215

>>3371238
A sentence is composed of a statement that has one truth value: true -or- false. The statement the sentence is composed of has more than one, therefore the sentence does not exist.

>>3371215
He's actually right, this line of reasoning has been formalized mathematically. Our 'paradoxes' are only a flaw of our finite system of language and reasoning. Because we can't transcend fundamentally finite language and reasoning we can never remove all the paradoxes. However, a proper removal of a paradox generally does come with a larger system of language/reason as a result.

>>3369791
godel's incompleteness theorem is not a paradox.
10/10 typical /sci/fag.

It's impossible... but it's right there... But it's impossible.... But it's right there!

>What paradox do you think is the most interesting or confusing? Science, math, anything...


Reality.

>>3369674

is EK really a nigger and a Epic troll?