The Unofficial Paradox Thread!

[PlasmaCannonsRule]

Post all paradoxes you can come up with here! Like, for instance;


I hate love. I love hate.

[munkee]

Jumbo Shrimp.. err...

Uh.. I don't really know any others.

[happystickman]

A Maxi Mini Mall!

[PlasmaCannonsRule]

Here's a paradox;

I'm icy hot!

[happystickman]

Non Alcoholic Alcohol!

[PlasmaCannonsRule]

I live to kill. I hate killing.

[happystickman]

I eat when im sad. I hate eating when im depressed

[PlasmaCannonsRule]

I ate dinner tonight. I haven't had anything to eat since breakfast.

[CheeseLord]

This sentence is false.


1) Statement 2 is true.
2) Statement 1 is false.


Most of the previous posts were oxymorons, not paradoxes.

[Roland]

I am smart.

Oh, wait - That's an oxymoron.

[AtkinsSJ]

Sailors who die of thirst while at sea.
People who eat because they are depressed, and are depressed because they are overweight.

[Mr.Onion]

You killed your gran before your parents are born.

[regeneratorizer]

Paradoxy looka like an orangatang. (Erm, dont ask, its an "in-joke" with me and my friends. Just couldnt resist posting it.)

Also, did someone say something about shrimp?

shrimp is the fruit of the sea. You can barbecue it, boil it, broil it, bake it, sautee it. Dey's uh, shrimp-kabobs, shrimp creole, shrimp gumbo. Pan fried, deep fried, stir-fried. There's pineapple shrimp, lemon shrimp, coconut shrimp, pepper shrimp, shrimp soup, shrimp stew, shrimp salad, shrimp and potatoes, shrimp burger, shrimp sandwich. That- that's about it.

[31337]

You forgot shrimp souffle. :shock:

[varkarrus]

These are all oxymorons. Here's a real one


Top 5 Mary Kate and Ashley Episodes!

[happystickman]

:lol: LOL:lol:

[Mr.Onion]

You killed your gran before your parents are born.
That's a paradox.

But these (look like) are oxymorons:

Freedom is Slavery! Peace is War! Less is More!

[Julian]

A man is going to be killed. How he is killed depends on if what he says is true. If it is, then he will be thrown into a pit of stakes. If it isn't, he will be thrown into a pit of lions. He says: "I will be thrown into a pit of lions.".

[blackmyth]

Or fried in oil/boiled in water.

[Mr.Onion]

A man is going to be killed. How he is killed depends on if what he says is true. If it is, then he will be thrown into a pit of stakes. If it isn't, he will be thrown into a pit of lions. He says: "I will be thrown into a pit of lions.".
This statement is false.

[Roland]

"I will be thrown into a pit of lions"

[Mossysox]

"I will be thrown into a pit of lions"


Er, that's not a paradox, Roland, that's just a prediction....

The following statement is false. The previous statement is true.


[Actually, some people would tell you (me, for instance) that most of these puzzles aren't really paradoxes at all, if you look at them closely enough. Most of them get the appearance of being true if and only if they are false from a confusion between sentences and statements. The sentence 'This statement is false', for instance, makes no statement, if the sentence is used self-referentially. But that's probably more logic than anybody wanted...]

[Roland]

No no no, I was responding to a previous thing involving lions. And spikes.

[CheeseLord]

Almost every paradox, if examined well, can be broken dow to "This statement is false". And part of the point of a paradox is that it is used self referentially.

This barber cuts the hair of anyone who does not cut his own hair. Does the barber cut his own hair?

[Mr.Onion]

"Have you voted in this poll?" has an answer.

[Mossysox]

Self-reference itself isn't the problem; it's vicious self-dependency that's the key, at least with the semantic paradoxes. I would say 'This statement is true' is as peculiar when the sentence is used self-referentially as 'This statement is false', even though there is no paradox involved in it - neither sentence actually makes any statement. (Both are ungrounded, to use Kripke's term.)

I'm not sure what to say about the set-theoretical paradoxes, like Russell's paradox that Cheeselord refers to. (Which can also be expressed as 'the set of all sets that are not members of themselves is a member of itself if and only if it isn't a member of itself'.) Russell's own solution was to insist on the Vicious Circle Principle, which requires that 'whatever involves all of a collection must not be one of the collection'. But this rules out more than the paradoxes, and blocks several proofs that Russell himself wanted to keep.