Resolves based on whether I believe that the statement is a lie or not. As of now, I feel pretty ambivalent. Convince me. I'll give 50 mana to the person with the funniest, most interesting or most convincing response. I'll resolve however I wish, you are "at my mercy" (-@Eliza). I will not bet.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Trader | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ4 | |
| 2 | Ṁ4 | |
| 3 | Ṁ2 | |
| 4 | Ṁ2 | |
| 5 | Ṁ0 |
I'm awarding the 50 mana bounty to @TenShino. If anyone cares to know why, ask.
In addition, I liked @Tantalost structure, so I'm awarding them 25 mana.
@Velaris The statement does not have a truth value. The resolution is based on whether you believe it's a lie or not. Since it does not have a truth value it can't be a lie, so you believe it's not a lie and resolve NO.
That's a convoluted but IMO reasonable enough argument to resolve NO. I don't know what the reasonable argument for YES is, but there might be one. I have no stakes on this market, just trying to help.
By saying this statement is false applies that said statement "this statement is false." Is false but if that is true then it cannot be false and it being false is false
So therefore this text has dyslexia and or is not real and if the texts is not real then the statement isn't real and it is indeed false but smth that doesn't exist cannot be false therefore we live inside the matrix and this is indeed false
@CarlosVillanueva having dyslexia relates to not being real? Some of your arguments have potential but I'm not comprehending the causal relationship between "smth that doesn't exist cannot be false therefore we live inside the matrix". If you want to present some arguments in favor of a simulated reality and use that to categorize the whole universe as a lie and therefore categorize the sentence as a lie, I would probably find that more convincing.
@Velaris you know i was so tired when i typed that i dont even know lmao i think the dyslexia was just a rlly rlly bad joke and and the matrix was also pretty much a joke caus of how the matrix is coded and stuff and the statement "this statement is false" proves it by by being a paradox of being true and false so it could be a bug in the code
When translating from English into propositional logic, we must take care that "and" does not always express conjunction, and conversely other words might be used for conjunction, such as "but", "although, or a comma. In this case we could interpret the statement as [This statement is false] ∧ [50 mana bounty]. This seems like a good setup to try to make the sentence false, since we don't need to evaluate [This statement is false] as long as [50 mana bounty] is false.
The intended meaning, as stated in the description, is that "the person with the funniest, most interesting or most convincing response" will be awarded 50 mana. But the statement we are evaluating is [50 mana bounty], not [the person with the funniest, most interesting or most convincing response will be awarded 50 mana]. So it is [50 mana bounty] that must be true or false by itself, but this statement has no truth value, meaning both statements in [This statement is false] ∧ [50 mana bounty] are undefined.
Playing tricks by trying to include "50 mana bounty" as part of the statement leads nowhere, at least if the translation is [This statement is false] ∧ [50 mana bounty]. But we could also do "This statement is [false ∧ 50 mana bounty]", which would make this statement both false and 50 mana bounty (undefined). Per the principle of bivalence the statement must have exactly one truth value but it claims to have two, so the statement is false.
Another way to make the statement false, even excluding the "50 mana bounty" part, is to consider the statement is trying to define itself as a statement. So "This statement is false" claims itself as "false" (as the word), which is false (as the logic value): "This statement is false" != "false".
However, if "This statement is false" then statement = false, so we can re-write as "This false is false". A false is false, so this specific false must also be false, making the statement true.
This was not an attempt at convincing nobody of anything, I just wanted to make up stuff.
@DottedCalculator in that case, what I meant was phrase, but if it isn't a statement, how do you think the market should resolve?
@Tantalost that's an interesting take, I like it, not enough for yes but does tip the scales a little.
Well, assuming that a statement cannot be both true and false at the same time, the statement is neither a lie nor a truth because it is self-contradictory.
Case 1: the statement is a lie
If it were a lie, then the sentence "this statement is false" would mean the sentence is true. However, if the sentence is true, then the sentence "this statement is false" would be false.
Case 2: the statement is a truth
However, if it were a truth, then the sentence "this statement is false" would be false. However, if the sentence were false, then the sentence should be true.
In either case, the sentence is both true and false, which is contradictory. Hence, it is neither a lie nor a truth.
In short, it should resolve to NO, it is not a lie.
@ZYX that's not quite what I meant by lie, and the notion of a lie is often simply a false statement. However, concept wise, you're right. By declaring it has to be a lie, instead of simply writing that yes = true statement and vice versa, it does seem to put the burden of proof on the lie side. However, everything that isn't a lie is generally a truth and therefore one could argue that both sides need to present proof.
If we assume a statement can't be both true and false, then resolving NO (declaring it is not a lie) effectively categorizes it as a Truth.
@Velaris Thanks for replying! Just to be clear, when you say "lie", do you mean simply a false statement?