Everyone, plesae post as many of them as you wish. I will start...

The below statement is false
The above statement is true

This post is awesome.

This post sucks.

paradox 1: post in a thread that the thread sucks

paradox 2: post on 4ch that 4ch is a failure

Moot made 4chan

Moot is the cancer that killed /b/

Dear 4-ch, if >>5 is fail, ill become an hero.

This post is as true as the cake.

All generalizations are false.

I'll give you five quid if you don't read this

http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/947/55096843.JPG

>>9 is that a paradox?

>>10
It's a pair-a-ducks!

All generalisations are true.

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

I like the selfreferential ones.

No generalisation is true

One of my favourite ones is the unexpected tiger (although it has a number of different names.)

A guy shows you a certain number of doors, let's say five, and behind one of the doors they have put a tiger, saying that "the door which the tiger is behind will be a total surprise."

Suppose that you open the doors in a given sequence, and that the first four open with no tiger. The fifth door then obviously has the tiger, therefore it wouldn't be a surprise. Hence the tiger is definitely NOT behind the fifth door.

Now you have four doors left. If you open those in a particular order then after you've opened three doors, you know the tiger can't be behind the fourth, because it wouldn't be a surprise.

And so on down to one door, where because you've already ruled out the last four doors, it obviously can't be behind the first one as it wouldn't be a surprise.

Therefore there is no tiger.

(Stolen from the wiki)

You travel back in time and kill your grandfather before he meets your grandmother which precludes your own conception and, therefore, you couldn't go back in time and kill your grandfather.

Freedom can only be gained by severing certain freedoms

look out >>15!!! the tiger was behind the fourth door, contradicting your assumption and ruining your paradox entirely!!!!!

>>11 thank you darlink I really didn't get it even if everyone else did

look out >>15!!!! the tiger was behind the fourth door, contradicting your assumption and completely underminding your paradox!!!!!!

You travel back in time and post the same thing without realising it. Therefore you are an idiot. But I love you

Paradox: 'The world' does not mean the real world.

Proof:
If 'The world' meant the real world, then it would mean everything that exists.

Then, it would exist itself.

But we have just inferred its existence without using any data about the real world.

Since nothing about the real world can be inferred without using real world data, 'The world' is not about the real world.

QED

Here's a version using Wittgenstein's terminology:

1. The world is all that is the case
2. A conjunction of true propositions is itself true
3. A conjunction implies each of its conjuncts
4. Only trivial truth can be inferred from trivial truth
5. The world is the conjunction of all true propositions (1->5)
6. The world is itself true (2&5->6)
7. The world's truth has just been inferred from trivial truths (1&2&5&6->7)
8. The world is trivially true (4&7->8)
9. The world implies everything that is true (3&5->9)
10. Everything true is trivial (4,8,9->10)

RAA

>>21
wow.

>>18
Correct, except in the original story I believe he jumped out from behind door #2.

The end result is the logic "proved" the tiger wasn't behind any door, which made the guy expect it to not be behind any door, which was sadly self-fulfilling since now no matter which door it's behind, it's unexpected.

If you ask me, the solution is to expect it to be behind every door.

There's one that always boggles me, from the movie Labyrinth as most popular but I see it everywhere else.

Two gargoyles, one speaks the truth and the other one lies. You are to use only one question to get a clue as to who to believe (the one not lying). The person asks, "Are you lying?" and from there I get lost because both the gargoyles say "No." Or maybe I'm getting this really wrong.

>>24
That's not a paradox, but rather a mind-boggling puzzle.

>>24

Classic puzzle.

Just ask one of the gargoyles, "What would the other gargoyle say if I asked them x?"

And then do the opposite.

I went to the past to impregnate my mother.

I don't know if that would be a paradox, it seems like more of a closed loop. By going back into the past you ensured the existence of yourself.

Much bigger problem if you went into the past and killed your mother.

>>24

"Are you a gargoyle?"

Everything I say is a lie

>>30

That's just a false statement,...

It can never be true, but it could only be false if everyone who ever said it had also told the truth at some time.

So in practice it is neither true nor false, but meaningless.

Paradox: Moral principles are immoral

Proof:
Actions are either justified by results or by the application of some moral principle.

If the application of a moral principle is justified by the results of that particular action then it is the results which justify the action, not the principle.

If the application of a moral principle is not justified by the results of that particular action then there is no justification for applying that principle in that case.

Since unjustified action can never be moral, moral principles are immoral.

>>26
I like the solution from The 10th Kingdom better.

You throw one of the gargoyles into one of the doors shouting "WHAT IS YOUR PURPOSE?!?!" and if the gargoyle dies you go through the other one.

Niggers are smart.

>>35

A generalization is not a paradox,...

"Cars are red" is not a paradox.

Witnessing a monkey being dumb increases the probability of niggers being smart.

This is because saying that all niggers are smart is equivalent to saying that all things which are not smart are not niggers.

>>37
pls restate your sentence. i cannot find any meaning in it.

age

Is this generalization a paradox?

First, you just lost TEH GAEM OHNOES!!!!!!!!!

Second, one of the rules of The Game is that "everyone is playing the game".

But, I'm not playing the game, so that rule (and all the others) don't apply to me.

It's the same reason I wear a Mason ring and draw pictures of Prophet Mohammed.

No generalisations are paradoxes.

Except that one. OH SHI-

I have a huge dick. I am not a nigger!
HA!

>>41
>>42
>>43
gb2/b/

>>44
gb2/fagland/

>>45
No really, if your idea of humour is "lol nigger fag do a barrel roll" then kindly go away.

>>46
lol nigger fag do a barrel roll

>>46
A few facts about me:

• I've been visiting 4chan for maybe a month, and do what I can to leave 4chan crap in 4chan.
• I figured out what "The Game" was maybe two weeks into it, and found it the most perfect example of a retarded idea disguised as a clever idea
• I figured out that loophole in The Game, independently, but I'm probably not the first. But I'd like the loophole to make it into the memesphere, because I have real-life friends who talk about the game, and how awesome it would be to get on the radio and say "you just lost the game", and stuff like that.
• OK, I misrepresented a loophole as a paradox. You nailed me.
• The points about mason rings and Mohammed, I'm definitely not the first to think those up. But Masons and Muslims alike are more powerful than the dreaded terroristic organized crime group known as "Anonymous".
• I've seen more racist crap spouted on 4chan in one month, than in fifteen years on the rest of the Internet.

>>48

Newfag. GTFO!

>>49
gb2/b/

Enough of these shallow easily-explained pseudo-paradoxes! Here's the big mystery, the paradox that lies at the centre of mankind's search for meaning, a deep insight that is recognised as universally true, yet paradoxically inexplicable:

pantsu are sexier than pussy

Explain that one away, logicians!

>>51
pantsu is sexy.
pussy is sex.

GTFO WEEABOO

>>53 doesn't realize that 4-ch is based off of a Japanese website.

Mongols had an empire but no lasting landmarks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-fejLjFGJY

The US/China jointly made tank;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikJHbhSsoeM
Then 4th June 1989 happened.