A Logical Deduction

The following statements are either true or false:

A. There are five lettered statements in this post.

B. This is not a statement.

C. Only two of these statements are false.

D. Only one of them is true.

E. The Holocaust never happened.

Am I a felon in Germany?


5 responses to “A Logical Deduction

  1. This is my third try at writing a reply haha. The previous two times I decided was a poor approach. However I always want to start with Statement C. It was kind of tricky, not having had any formal logic theory. I think I have a hard time from trying to figure out how to use C.

    Condition for C implies C MAY BE true if 2 others are false. In fact it can be false, because the 2 others + C would mean 3 false. This also implies when C is false there cannot only be one other false and vice versa.

    Our base case(?) is E is false, meaning at least one statement is false. That means if C is false there must be other incorrect statements. If C is true, there must be exactly one other false statement.

    C and D cannot both be true, but can both be false. A and B are contradictions, one and only one must be true, I believe. If that’s the case, then There are automatically at least 3 falses (A/B, C/D, E), meaning C must be false. Now we have figured out 2 of the 5 statements to be false, and there must be one more (as noted previously and as C reminds us).

    D says one statement is true. D can only be true is all else are false, because D points to itself. This is not true because A or B must be true. D is false, and thus CDE are currently false. But…one of A or B must be true…then D is true….contradiction..

    Also, I just realized if B is not a statement, then it can’t state what it states, thus it is a statement. The statement is a pardox itself..isn’t it? I’m broken. xD

  2. This post, in fact, purports to be a proof of statement E. If all five statements are logically valid, then they force E to be true. However, that’s the catch: this is why self-referential or circularly self-referential statements can’t be valid in axiomatic logic. It’s a more complex version of the Liar Paradox – basically saying “Either this sentence is a lie, or E is true.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s