“I’ll do it tomorrow.”
same
Practice man, practice. After a while you come to term with reality and instead of saying “I’ll do it tomorrow”, you start saying “Fuck it, I’m not doing it,I’ve got more important things to do, like play with my balls or something”. Off course I’m being presumptuous, but I do know its true with me.
“I serve a purpose”
Blatant self serving lie.
The biggest lie I yell myself is that I am a liar, and I’ve worked out a solution, or so I think.
Alright, consider a common statement (proposition) X=“S is P”. In order to prove X=T or X=F, we construct the sequence (3) using the CONTENTs of the subject S and the predicate P. In the case of the “Liar” in its
equivalent form X=“X is false”, the content of its subject becomes
exhausted by the X itself. The content of the predicate “false” becomes
exhausted by the content of the copula “is” which has a CONSTANT CONTENT. Thus, in the case of the “Liar”, neither the content of its subject nor the content of its predicate allow to come out a frame of the “Liar” (“in the world”) in order to construct a sequence (3). Just therefore in (3) n=0. So, the “Liar” is reality the
Immanuel Kant’s NOUMENON, i.e., “a thing in itself” (“ves’ch v sebe”
in Russian), which has no connections neither with the World nor with
the Logic.
REMARK here that such a “infinite nature” (4) of the “Liar” correlates
well with our analysis of G.Cantor’s proof of his Theorem about the
uncountability of the real numbers set {see [2-4] below and a lot of
my messages to the History of Mathematics [HM] and Foundations of
Mathematics [FOM] e-discussion groups}.
We showed there that 1) the so-called Diagonal Method by Cantor (DMC)
uses ONLY the ACTUALITY of correspondet sets (and sequences) of real
numbers, and does not use their infinity; 2) the Cantor’s proof itself
is a deductive inference of the consequence “a given enumeration
contains NOT ALL real numbers” (say, NOT-A) from the assumption
(premise) “a given enumeration contains ALL real numbers” (A), i.e.,
the Cantor’s proof realizes the HALF of a paradox:
NOT-A ==> A (5)
- explicitly using the INFINITY of correspondet sets, the inverse
implication,
A ==> NOT-A (6)
can be really constructed, and the Cantor’s proof is transformed into
the NEW SET THEORETICAL PARADOX in its common form:
[NOT-A ==> A] AND [A ==> NOT-A] (7)
- but it was shown that the form (7) is a first step only of the
POTENTIALLY INFINITE process:
NOT-A ==> A ==> NOT-A ==> A ==> NOT-A ==> … (8)
Thus, the Cantor’s proof includes the potentially infinite stage (8),
i.e., it is a NON-FINITE PROOF which proves nothing.
So you see that while it is a good start there are many more problems.
OMG. I totally didn’t write all that. I stole it from a google search: sunsite.utk.edu/math_archives/.h … /0144.html
Once, just once, I wanted to feel what it was like to be admired for my intelligence.
I’m sorry, ILP. I am unworthy even of pity…
[runs in shame]
That I will never forgive.
“Someday I’ll get laid.”
My own personal self lie is…
women find me desirable.
Never a bigger lie was ever told.
Kropotkin
That I am immensely talented.
That I am utterly unlovable and worthless.
Neither one has any truth.
That I can control my emotions.
That I am undeserving of what I have comming to me.
[Event] is not possible.
I don’t care.
That I will actually say no to my family more when they want me to do something I don’t want to do. I say no to non family easily. Go figure. You would think it would be the other way around.
as always… km, the voice of reason.
That I like myself. (emo, i know)
As always… Bess, the most revealing. 
.
That I am sincere.
Man what a depressing thread…