Find a statement that is both true and false at the same time

it is neither true nor false. if it was both then ZFC would be inconsistent

What did he mean by this

this sentence is true (you are constantly traveling "forward" through time)
this sentence is false
this sentence is false
either true or false, which kinda depends on the definition of sex. certainly not both true AND false.
wrong. a contradicory statement is false but not true.
probably false, but again, certanly not both true and false.

this post is false

"It is 9:24 pm right now."
There exists atleast one frame of reference where this statement is true, and one where it is false.

Lebanon is in the USA.

Driveling piggot

Are we talking about a statement of PL? Because by definition you cant do that in PL.

In PL a contradictory statement is one which is not internally consistent. Lack of internal consistency is defined as having both a statement and its inverse anywhere in the set or in statements derived from the set.

>abusing nomenclature and semantics
Nice tries though

I assume there's a city called Lebanon somewhere in the US ? In that case your statement is never false.

A piggot oinkery

mind to point out my mistakes?
so? only because a statement contains a true and a false part that doesnt make the statement as a whole both true and false.

>this sentence is true (you are constantly traveling "forward" through time)

It's subjective. I purposely made it vague so it could be taken either way. You can travel through time through continuity, but you cannot travel through time to any point you want.

We're not talking about a true statement and a false statement, we're talking about a true statement and its inverse, which would mean that in the frame of that logical set the statement is both consistently true and false. Such a set is considered inconsistent and as such cannot yield a correct assertion. Ergo there is no TRUE set you can construct, i.e. one based on reality, which will yield a statement which is both true and false. This all assumes you're using PL, which is what you SHOULD be using for something like this, but thats another story.

Things exist.

>Find a statement that is both true and false at the same time.
"There does not exist such a statement".

>wrong. a contradicory statement is false but not true.
Wrong. If contradictions were false they would be allowed in classical logic. But they aren't because they are both true and false which classical logic cannot accept.

An example, perhaps:

Given:
A=C
A=B
B=/=C

therefore
A=/=B

This set is itself a statement which yields an inconsistent result. Regardless of whatever else you can conclude, the set of assumptions cannot all be simultaneously true. Now, it is true that assertions developed in improper sets an themselves be true by virtue of more consistent sets, but thats not what we're talking about here.

>no statement is objectively true

This is true because muh philosophy, but that would also imply it is at the same time false.

nvm, i misunderstood you first
>this set itself is a statement which yields an incoherent result
so thats statement is false. why exactly is it also true?

It's subjectivity, as mentions, makes it both true and false.

*that statement

The cat is alive.

You're getting ahead of yourself. The set is itself what you have asked for. It contains a statement A=B which is by the assertion of the set also A=/=B. Such a set is considered invalid, and is identical to what you have asked for. I.e. you are asking for a set which, were it to exist is invalid. If you accept that, then I have satisfied your request merely with:
A=B
B=/=C
A=C
therefore
A=/=B

The result of this set is at once true and false, as it satisfies one condition but not another. If you do not accept this elementary answer, then you cannot except any answer, as no other will meet your criteria.

You have asked a simple question to a room full of morons.

Holocaust is the best thing that didn't happen.

im not OP

i see, you mean A=/=B would be hypothtically true and false IF A=B, B=/=C and A=C are true. i was talking ACTUALLY true and false.
>if this answer doesnt meet your criteria, no answer will
atleast not if recursive statements dont count, i think

deep

Existence Exists

It's a paradox.

Tomorrow never comes.
Yesterday will come.

Still true and false at the same time though

it's not a paradox. it can't be true, because then you're not lying. but it can be false.

The photon went through the right slit

Photons behave as waves.

all apples in empty box are red

But if he is lying, then it is true.

All logic is solved recursively, you'd know that if you'd bothered to learn PL in school. There are literally 3 rules in PL and if you follow them recursively you will solve any set as either consistent or inconsistent. My point is that by definition a set which contains a statement that is both true and false (using the simplest form of statement and its inverse as a root example) is inconsistent and therefore not logically valid.

Again, a PL problem. If you resolve All with its inverse "there is not one which is not" then your statement is not in any way false.

semantic and false.

all apples red would be 100% red
0 apples in the box
0 of them are red
0/0 red
seems like a dividing by zero thing?

[math]\{x:x\in x\} \in \{x:x\in x\}[/math]

that's false. empty isn't an element of empty

...

OP is a faggot.

"Literally" is literally never used literally.

>I don't like where those goal posts are, can we move them?

Out of curiosity, what is the point of this exercise?

>kill OP and put body in freezer

OP Is cool.

seeYou can freely redefine an "All" statement to a "not at least one which is not" statement. As such, the rephrased claim "There is not at least one apple which is not red in an empty box" is logically sound.

Wouldn't a statement that is indeterminate fit the criteria?
Like x+1>y (not given values for x or y)

>what is the point of this exercise?
Enlightenment

In an inconsistent theory, any statement is both true and false.

I do not exist

True in some worlds false in this one

T. Brainlet

Can confirm I live in Lebanon Township, NJ.

An unobserved Shrodingers cat is dead.

brainlet

>neither true nor false
Not true = false
Not false = true

P=NP

[math]
U = \{ X: X \notin X \} \\
U \in U
[/math]

Ah, poor freshman. It hurts to see your kind crawling on the floor covered in shit and puke because of your own ignorance. Let me clean some of the shit you have on your face:

U is not a well defined set because you did not define where X varies.

>U is not a well defined set because I'm a retard that doesn't understand context

I do understand context. I know that in your retarded brain, X varies over all sets. Which is equivalent to say that X varies in the set of all sets, but there does not exist the set of all sets. The collection of all sets is not a set, therefore you may not use it in a sentence of set theory.

Back to crawling on shit. I tried to teach you and your little tiny brain could not comprehend.

>Literally so retarded he can't grasp anything that's not ZF set theory
>Calling other brainlets

I can understand all consistent set theories. And all consistent set theories have some way or another to avoid your little paradox there. I just assumed you were talking about ZF because no one cares about any of the other set theories. The debate has been had and ZF is the holy grail of mathematical achievement.

Back to crawling on shit

are you retarded or just pretending to be? sad!

>Ask for a statement that's both true and false
>Get mad when someone gives you one because it's not ZF
You never specified under which system the statement should be made. Stay BTFO, faggot

>Godel's incomprehensibility

So it's always false retard. false and true = false

The best you're going to get with this is wordplay.

electrons aren't particles

I am not stating a phrase which could potentially be completed to form a paradox that is nonrecursive.

oink oink