Person X

Adam gets more mileage out of saying nothing, than I have ever seen... I wonder if he reherses in a mirror sometimes....

Originally posted by adam warlock

[b]Thesis
The proposition: All three legged, red eyed, two headed Japanese eat red bananas. is true.

[quote]Proof
Let's assume that the proposition is false. Then there is (ate least) one three legged, red eyed, two headed Japanese that doesn't eat red bananas.
Since this obviously isn't the case (there is no such ...[text shortened]... yed, two headed Japanese simply because of the fact that they don't exist.

Simple really![/b]

Your 'solution' is mere juvenile sophistry. The question of the truth or falsity of the original statement arises only on the assumption that the named creatures exist in the first place.

Originally posted by adam warlock
So you're comparing a three legged, red eyed, two headed japanese (which everyone knows what it is in the 21th century) to an electron (which everyone didn't know what it was in the 15th century)?

Are you really saying that this comparison is sane?
Will you be telling me that I didn't get your "point" too?

You started by saying that the pr rong, you know?

Ps: Don't forget to answer Palynka's question.

The set is not empty. Such creatures may exist. Long walls of texts cannot hide that you were wrong and the assumption that such creatures do not exist is essential to your conclusion, but not given as a premise in your puzzle.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
The set is not empty.

I can only hope that you solipsism is consistent, then.

Ps: you still haven't Palynka. I wonder why...

Originally posted by adam warlock
In that case why start your first intervention in this thread with this: I don't think a truth value can be assigned to it.
It looks like a conceited position to take if you don't know the meaning of truth value.

I may not know what you mean by 'truth value' but I sure do know what I mean. It is conceited to think you own the phrase.

What I mean with truth value is easily found on the web after a google search.
Quite likely. And you probably understood what I meant by the phrase too, yet you didn't like my answer. And instead of simply saying "well that isn't what I meant in the question" you chose to take the rude position and say I was incorrect without explanation. I still say I am correct, I just haven't apparently answered your question due to not understanding the question in the first place. But your lack of explanation in the question is as much at fault as I am.
I am sure this proves that I for one do not have a PhD in a relevant subject and I have already admitted as such.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It is conceited to think you own the phrase.

When I say that the phrase is easily found on the web, I'm, in essence, saying that I don't own the phrase. I'm saying that the phrase has a precise technical meaning and that precise technical meaning is easily found by anyone that has a real interest in knowing it..

If you don't know what it means and want to invent your own meaning, by all means do so, but don't expect me to play that game because it has no interest of any kind.

Originally posted by adam warlock
If you don't know what it means and want to invent your own meaning, by all means do so, but don't expect me to play that game because it has no interest of any kind.

And I dispute that I invented a meaning. I used the phrase well within its standard English meaning. I don't expect you to play any games, I was merely pointing out that I was not conceited to use the phrase or make assertions with the phrase, and knowing what you meant by the phrase was not required in order to make those assertions.
You on the other hand, despite, I believe, fully understanding my usage of the phrase, feel you can dictate to me its one true meaning forsaking all others.

Additionally I do think it is interesting to discuss whether or not the original statement is true (by the standard dictionary meaning of that word). I still claim that it is neither true nor false as it does not supply enough information to make a determination.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And I dispute that I invented a meaning. I used the phrase well within its standard English meaning. I don't expect you to play any games, I was merely pointing out that I was not conceited to use the phrase or make assertions with the phrase, and knowing what you meant by the phrase was not required in order to make those assertions.
You on the other ha ...[text shortened]... it is neither true nor false as it does not supply enough information to make a determination.

Whatever you say.