Titles Request

[willpell]

I'd like to suggest that at some point the web gurus arrange for the title of each strip to display above the comic itself. Normally I just read through the archive with the Forward button, so I don't see the titles of the strips, they're just in the archive list. It's no big deal of course, but it'd be nice if you could.

[SPoD]

I'd like to suggest that at some point the web gurus arrange for the title of each strip to display above the comic itself. Normally I just read through the archive with the Forward button, so I don't see the titles of the strips, they're just in the archive list. It's no big deal of course, but it'd be nice if you could.

This request has been made at least once a month for the last two years, most recently here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65958). So it's not a new idea, Rich just doesn't seem to want to do it (for whatever reason).

[Firestar27]

This request has been made at least once a month for the last two years, most recently here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65958). So it's not a new idea, Rich just doesn't seem to want to do it (for whatever reason).

Actually, because he just requested it, this is now the most recent request.

[mikeejimbo]

Actually, because he just requested it, this is now the most recent request.

Whoa now, that's kind of trippy. It's like that paradox about googlewhacking, except, not quite.

[Alysar]

I would like to request that the titles of the comics be shown on the page with the comic.


Now that's the most recent request.

[monty]

Whoa now, that's kind of trippy. It's like that paradox about googlewhacking, except, not quite.

You want paradox? This statement is false.

Alternately, Σ((-1)^x,x,1,∞). I think I got the syntax right on that, anyway.

[willpell]

You want paradox? This statement is false.

Personally, I prefer "There is an exception to every rule".

[Xandro]

Personally, I prefer "There is an exception to every rule".

Don't see the paradox in it.

O.k., assuming your statement can be seen as a rule.
Then there are exeptions of it.

It means there are rules without exeptions. But not necessarily ervery rule.

So erverything is fine.

"This statement is false" is a real paradox.

"I'm a real comic nerd AND have a girlfriend" maybe too...

Oh-oh ... makes me a living paradox...

[Psychonaut]

There is an exception to every rule.


It means there are rules without exeptions. But not necessarily ervery rule.

I think I'm not getting what you mean here. How does "There are rules without exceptions" follow at all from "There is an exception to every rule"?

That said, I agree that it's not a paradox in the strictest use of the term, but for different reasons. It seems paradoxical when you consider the consequences of its truth (if we assume that the statement is itself meant to be a rule, naturally). It cannot be true without violating its own truth - i.e. since it specifies every rule, it would include itself and could not be true unless there was an exception to it, in which case it would be false anyway. But it can be false with no problem whatsoever. That simply would imply that there is not an exception to every rule, not that no rules have exceptions. If some rules have exceptions and others do not, the statement may be false with impunity. So it's not paradoxical for the same reason that "The sky is green" is not paradoxical: it's simply a false statement. "This sentence is false", on the other hand, can be neither true nor false.

{Edit: Come to think of it, though, this all may be a moot point, since I think the classic definition of a paradox requires only that a statement's truth would imply a contradiction, not that it can be neither true nor false. In which case it is a paradox. Is this "strictest use of the term" just a figment of my imagination? I could have sworn that I'd seen it used like that...}

[mikeejimbo]

{Edit: Come to think of it, though, this all may be a moot point, since I think the classic definition of a paradox requires only that a statement's truth would imply a contradiction, not that it can be neither true nor false. In which case it is a paradox. Is this "strictest use of the term" just a figment of my imagination? I could have sworn that I'd seen it used like that...}

I think that may indeed be the classic definition of a paradox, so I think it could be.

Also, I'm not sure I understand the syntax of the summation.