flannel jesus

But I'm asking you now, what's left unclear? I understand you didn't start out with clarity, but we're not where we started, so what's left unclear?

But is the logic not already clear? You first prove that C can be the only one who always tells the truth, and since C is always telling the truth, B ...

ok I am. I still don't get why the answer everyone else is giving isn't satisfying to you.

yeah I edited my post as you were writing that, I realize that's what you mean

I just saw this in your post above and classically that's not how logic goes. B v ~B is true even if we know the answer is ~B I kinda see what you wer...

cool program dude

Honestly it just doesn't seem like he gets it. He says the debate remains, but to everyone else it's really clear. A sometimes tells the truth, but he...

this is no general trump conversation, this is the highest profile and closest assassination attempt in a long ass time! It deserves its own thread.

Yeah that's a good explanation for why it intuitively makes sense that they're a contradiction. Consider this as an intuitive explanation for why they...

For the record, I did in fact edit exactly one post, but I edited it within a minute of making it and it had nothing to do with the arguments of Micha...

yeah, scenario 1 is the more obvious one, scenario 3 was what you came up with with the alternative interpretation of sometimes, and scenario 2 is wha...

just to be fully clear: You're saying "I sometimes tell the truth" and "I always tell the truth" can be simultaneously true - which I brought up in th...

yes I'm actually talking about the same interpretation, and what I'm saying is a possibility within that interpretation

Or one of a and B sometimes, and the other one always tells the truth

I didn't edit my posts. What edit do you think I made?

ok you must be trolling at this point The answer is apparently obvious to everyone but you.

I think you're confused about what I've claimed. I've only claimed he can't be THE liar, as in, the one who always lies. He can lie, I've said that ex...

Person c always tells the truth, and he says B is the liar. Therefore a can't be the liar. I can't tell if you're trolling. A can sometimes tell lies,...

Yes, you're overcomplicating something very simple. C tells the truth. C says B is the liar. Therefore, B is the liar. You keep asking this, and every...

Who claims these things? As far as I can tell, everyone here except you has understood that b must be the liar. Who else do you see claiming a might b...

I don't know why you're defending that. If C always tells the truth, and C says B always lies, then B always lies. That seems pretty simple and straig...

But that's not the context. A doesn't always tell the truth. So... why are you saying that's the context? We know he can't be the one who always tells...

He's using unclear wording, but when he says "ambiguous person" he means "the person who sometimes tells the truth". He doesn't mean "the person whose...

according what context? No b couldn't

you've just laid out two scenarios we already know aren't the case. I'm not really sure what the point of assuming they are the truth tellers, when we...

do you think it could be some other way?

I've been saying that consistently since my second post in this thread, yeah

No, just false He sometimes lies, and sometimes tells the truth.

if we know c is the truth teller, and c says b is the liar, then b is the liar. Easy as that. A sometimes tells the truth, and his statement in this r...

okay, then if they're mutually exclusive, we can use the following logic: B definitely CANNOT be the guy who always tells the truth, since that would ...

I'm not sure you answered my question. Can you give me a yes or no?

But if "b always tells the truth" and "b sometimes tells the truth" are interpreted to be mutually exclusive statements, the riddle has an immediate s...

When person B says he "sometimes tells the truth", is that consistent with the statement "person B always tells the truth"? I just want to get that qu...

I'm not saying "the material conditional in Boolean logic used for computing is nonsensical".

The consequent follows from the premise in the implication, (A -> B) You think when I use the word 'follow', and completely understandably, I mean "th...

no - the consequent can only be affirmed as true IF the antecedent is first affirmed as true. It's THAT that is not the case here. I'm not affirming t...

I don't know what you think I'm saying, but I feel like you're misunderstanding it. Of course I agree that we can't conclude B and notB. The fact that...

You're certainly not alone in thinking that, But I personally think it's not a coincidence that "from falsehood, anything follows" perfectly mirrors h...

Well... yes, kind of. From falsehood, anything follows. Have you ever heard of this? This example before us is a great example of that. You think if a...

You haven't lost any debate, you just made a post with some mistakes. You seem ready to acknowledge them, which is winning in my book.

It's kind of hilarious, it seems like you're using this as an example of some unavaoidable language landmine just about anybody could walk into, but.....

Looks like the answer to both is, you.

And who came up with that sentence? Typed that into google, no hits. Is that one of yours?

The task given to the oracle doesn't make sense. The task given to the oracle is "predict the output of this Thw program, after you feed into the Thw ...

You don't seem interested in trying to make yourself clear, in trying to develop a self-consistent vocabulary for your ideas. You end your post with "...

and you don't seem to be trying much to disambiguate your incompatible vocabularies, making the arguments seem very non compelling as a whole. When on...

seems like you're mixing vocabularies a lot here and generating a lot of unnecessary ambiguity.

Yeah, if you say determinism means completeness, then "incomplete deterministic" just sounds like "incomplete completeness". Seems like a nosnense ter...

This is just factually untrue. You've got chaos theory which makes future-predicting oracles impossible, to start with.

So then when you were talking about incomplete determinism, you were... what? What is that? An oxymoron? Nonsense? A contradiction? What is that?