This is some sort of paradox; I believe, but I can't for the life of me remember what this is called.

"The only rule without exception is that any rule made by a human always has an exception." Obviously, I'm human and I just made this rule.

Now what's the term that describes what I just did????????

This is some sort of paradox; I believe, but I can't for the life of me remember what this is called.

"The only rule without exception is that any rule made by a human always has an exception." Obviously, I'm human and I just made this rule.

Now what's the term that describes what I just did????????

I think it's just a reskin of the liar paradox.

edit: unless you found another rule that didn't have an exception, which would be the exception to this rule.

Now what's the term that describes what I just did????????

You made a self-contradictory statement similar to the Liar Paradox or the Epimenides Paradox. Is that what you were thinking of?

'Alpha_ProgDes' said:

Now what's the term that describes what I just did????????

You made a self-contradictory statement similar to the Liar Paradox or the Epimenides Paradox. Is that what you were thinking of?

The interesting thing about his statement though is that it's not self-contradictory as long as there exists some exception to that rule.

did anyone else's ears just pop?

The interesting thing about his statement though is that it's not self-contradictory as long as there exists some exception to that rule.

Actually looking into it, this turns out to be a proof that the statement "every rule has an exception" is false. See here.

'way2lazy2care' said:

The interesting thing about his statement though is that it's not self-contradictory as long as there exists some exception to that rule.

Actually looking into it, this turns out to be a proof that the statement "every rule has an exception" is false. See here.

Is that actually a proof that it is false?

1. Every rule has an exception. (Statement)
2. "Every rule has an exception" has an exception. (By 1)
3. There exists some rule R without exception. (By 2)
4. Since R is a rule, by the first statement it must have an exception. But by 3, it does not have an exception - a contradiction.

Is there actually a true contradiction leading to it being false?
1. Every rule has an exception (Including this one), therefore this statement is only true IF there is at least one rule without an exception. (Even if the exception is itself, and every other rule has an exception, and that one rule holds 'true' in all cases but itself.)

Statement 1 is true if it has an exception. "Every rule has an exception" leads to "Every rule has an exception, this is a rule, therefore it has an exception" which leads to a more proper wording of "Nearly every rule has an exception, because this is a rule that must have an exception which means there exists at least one rule not bound by this."


Note: I have been awake for like 10 minutes.

'way2lazy2care' said:

The interesting thing about his statement though is that it's not self-contradictory as long as there exists some exception to that rule.

Actually looking into it, this turns out to be a proof that the statement "every rule has an exception" is false. See here.

[font=arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif][size=2]On thinking again it seems like the statement is entirely self-contradictory (the proof can actually be a lot shorter with higher order logic). It pretty much says, "This rule is always true but is not always true." You can, however, create a world that is consistent with a set of rules containing the rule.