figure this one out

alrighty, if any1 can figure this brain twister out u get a cookie!

 

AHEM

 

the following sentence is false.

the previous sentence is true.

 

knock urselves out

http://img457.imageshack.us/img457/9396/imposslg9sl.gif

 

Take that!

I would give you the answer but I can't get past the spelling errors : P

the first one is solved with orwellian double speak.

 

They are both simultaneously true and false.

 

1 point.

 

Stang's:

 

Just an arrangement of lines and arcs with no solution because there is no problem. optical illusions ftw.

 

1 point

 

I win.

the first one is solved with orwellian double speak.

 

what the crap is that

prime ftw.

 

i'm confused tho... /me gets nothing!

 

/dunce

the first one is solved with orwellian double speak.

 

what the crap is that

 

Whenever you watch a politicians lips move and hear sounds come out, chances are, it's doublespeak.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_speak

the following sentance is false.

the previous sentance is true.

 

I could get a different meaning based on an alternative parsing of the sentence. The first sentence, we initially think means... "The sentence after this current one is false." But the grammar used is partially ambiguous. The sentence could be using 'following' to determine a specific sentence elsewhere for reference. For example, I told you this current sentence is the red setence. You could say "The red sentence is true." It all depends on whether 'following' is a verb or a verb function as an adjective phrase.

 

Unfortunately, there is not special sentence otherwise in your post that we could figure to be called the 'following' sentence. An example of this sort of 'riddle' trick would be the probable solution to words ending in -GRY riddle.

 

--Wren

No capital letters!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wren, I think "Knock yourselves out" counts as a following sentence

 

And "AHEM" is previous?

well... as soon as i find out what a sentance is vs a sentence then i'll be able to put my 2 cents in (:

well... as soon as i find out what a sentance is vs a sentence then i'll be able to put my 2 cents in (:

 

What a sensible thing to say.

well... as soon as i find out what a sentance is vs a sentence then i'll be able to put my 2 cents in (:

 

What a sensible thing to say.

 

Irrational, however, unless the riddle is that simple. In which case... Bloody murder!

Wren, I think \"Knock  yourselves out\" counts as a following sentence

 

And \"AHEM\" is previous?

 

That would work if it was 'a' following or 'a' previous sentence. Cause then he could be referring to any of the previous or following statements.

 

But it is 'the' following and 'the' previous sentence, which limits what sentences he can be talking about.

 

We also have to consider that there has to be some statement that can be evaluated logically. So a sentence asserting truth 'X is true.' can be, but the others can't. I also checked to see if there was an HTML comment between them, just to be sure it wasn't a cheap trick. : )

 

--Rob

jeesh... and i thought i was a grammar geek...

I'm not sure if following has a denotation of next or not, but it was following that I was referring to, not the, which is, in fact, specific in that he means one particular sentence, but which sentence, who knows? Unless the denotation of following is indeed next.

 

Also, following could mean the sentence that is following behind something. Or even modelling after. In the first case, both sentences refer to the first sentence, depending on your defniition of behind, I suppose. This would mean that the statement is in fact true, in which case there is no contradiction because the next sentence says that the previous is true, which says that it is false, so that it is indeed true because it falsifies a statment that claims its own falsehood.

I'm sorry, I don't follow.

Who's on first?

that's too hard I like the simple logic problem!!

 

This sentence is false.

Sentences can neither be true nor false, only a claim within a sentence can have that attribute. Hence you simply substitute "The following sentence is false." each time you want to say "true" and "The previous sentence is true." each time you want to say "false." It's like assigning values and meanings to phrases

really? I could've sworn that when I say I live in atlanta that's a true sentence...go figure!

 

The actual question isn't about the structure it's about the meaning of the sentence. If it was merely a syntax question it wouldn't be a logic problem.

 

If “this sentence is false” is true, then it’s false, but also, if it’s false, then it’s true.

If  “this sentence is false” is true, then it’s false, but also, if it’s false, then it’s true.

 

Logical contradictions are quite useful. Reductio ad absurdum FTW!

 

--Wren

If  “this sentence is false” is true, then it’s false, but also, if it’s false, then it’s true.

 

Orwellian Doublespeak at its finest

The two sentences are mutually exclusive.

 

I.E

 

[/color]

 

The Previous Sentence is red.

 

my head asplode

rofl i should post my little mind twisters more often; i make them up ona daily basis

 

was in middle of first period (computer science) and got bored so i posted this, and half a day later i have like 20 responces! gogo meeee!!!

 

are u guys done killing urselves over this one, or yah want more time before another?

 

P.S. this is the second time ive started a thread and first time ive ever gotten any responces.. i declared friday to be an international holiday from this point onward, thus no school or work for anyone! (except esteb )