3 ms·
> It is impossible to prove a negative Since this statement is itself a negative, you've presented a paradox, because if it were proven true it would then be f
by Maursault 4y ago
> It is impossible to prove a negative
Since this statement is itself a negative, you've presented a paradox, because if it were proven true it would then be false.
- planetsprite 4y agoI'll amend my statement It is easier to prove a positive since it requires only the "smoking gun" to be made apparent. It is much harder to disprove a negative because it requires hypothetical smoking gun that could have caused the effect (Han's beating of Magnus) to be disproven. Since we don't have a record of every electromagnetic and sonic wave which passed through the room the day Hans beat Magnus, disproving the cheating claim is likely impossible.
- bombcar 4y agoIt would be amusing if such a record had been quietly made and then made available to all for analysis.
- JulianWasTaken 4y agoThings which are true but not provable aren't paradoxes, they're simply unprovable.
- Maursault 4y agoThis is a straw man. Truth values of paradoxes can not be determined, only postulated. It is a paradox because if it were proven true it would be false, and vice versa. In precisely the same way, "this phrase is false," is also a paradox, and whether or not the truth value can be determined (it can not) is not relevant to whether it is a paradox.
- JulianWasTaken 4y agoYes, truth values of paradoxes cannot be determined, but it's you who called it a paradox. On its face, it isn't a paradox. If we're being pedantic, which your initial response struck me as, there are again true statements with no proof, and this isn't a paradox, it's Gödel's first incompleteness theorem (which is specifically different from the liar's paradox you mentioned, precisely in the difference between what is true and what is provable).