Talk:Paradox of entailment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] If it is raining, water exists

Is water only able to produce rain? Can other substances rain? If yes, this premise is incorrect and since the logic is based on this premise, this statement is then incorrect. Food for thought, Daimanta 16:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


It's a perfectly valid and sound argument.

if

2 + 2 = 4

and

2 + 2 = 5

then

2 = 1

Therefore, since Elvis and the Pope are two people, Elvis and the Pope are one person.

Grahamsw

This makes no sense at all and it is completely idiotic. 2 plus 2 does not equal 5, end of story. To base an argument on something like this is stupid. This isn't a paradox, it's just stupid.

  • To expand on the above in a more logical manner. You can not use an untrue math formula to prove the Paradox of entailment, as the basis for the paradox is using two statements that can be true by themselves, but NOT true in conjunction with each other . Since 2+2 can never equal 5, your second premise is never true, and your conclusion can be disproved based on that. See also the Heisenberg uncertainty principle Cstella23 16:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


This is an old joke. Recently someone added something similar, but with the added line:

Similarly, any arithmeticaly inconsistent premises can be used to construct the statement "1=2". Then the same argument shows that P = Q, for any two satements P and Q.

There is a little bit of truth to this last bit, but not much. Not enough for the article, even in the state it is currently in. 192.75.48.150 20:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

"...inconsistent premises imply all conclusions are true." - shouldn't that be changed into "... inconsistent premises imply that even wrong conclusions make the implication as a whole a true statement."?

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/a/r/Talk%7EParadox_of_entailment_7e67.html"