Ads
related to: paradoxical antonym worksheet printable templategenerationgenius.com has been visited by 10K+ users in the past month
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Shows that a sentence can be paradoxical even if it is not self-referring and does not use demonstratives or indexicals. Yablo's paradox: An ordered infinite sequence of sentences, each of which says that all following sentences are false. While constructed to avoid self-reference, there is no consensus whether it relies on self-reference or not.
The Grelling–Nelson paradox arises from the question of whether the term "non-self-descriptive" is self-descriptive. It was formulated in 1908 by Kurt Grelling and Leonard Nelson, and is sometimes mistakenly attributed to the German philosopher and mathematician Hermann Weyl [1] thus occasionally called Weyl's paradox or Grelling's paradox.
In literature, the paradox is an anomalous juxtaposition of incongruous ideas for the sake of striking exposition or unexpected insight. It functions as a method of literary composition and analysis that involves examining apparently contradictory statements and drawing conclusions either to reconcile them or to explain their presence.
Although statements can be self referential without being paradoxical ("This statement is written in English" is a true and non-paradoxical self-referential statement), self-reference is a common element of paradoxes. One example occurs in the liar paradox, which is commonly formulated as the self-referential statement "This statement is false ...
Oxymorons in the narrow sense are a rhetorical device used deliberately by the speaker and intended to be understood as such by the listener. In a more extended sense, the term "oxymoron" has also been applied to inadvertent or incidental contradictions, as in the case of "dead metaphors" ("barely clothed" or "terribly good").
Hindi: कल and Urdu: کل (kal) may mean either "yesterday" or "tomorrow" (disambiguated by the verb in the sentence).; Icelandic: fram eftir can mean "toward the sea" or "away from the sea" depending on dialect.
The paradoxical conclusion then would be that travel over any finite distance can be neither completed nor begun, and so all motion must be an illusion. [ 15 ] This argument is called the " Dichotomy " because it involves repeatedly splitting a distance into two parts.
In the early literature on Parrondo's paradox, it was debated whether the word 'paradox' is an appropriate description given that the Parrondo effect can be understood in mathematical terms. The 'paradoxical' effect can be mathematically explained in terms of a convex linear combination.