You Suck Big Black Cocks

"If this sentence is true, then you suck big black cocks."

The quoted sentence is of the form "If A then B" where A refers to the sentence itself and B refers to "you suck big black cocks".

The usual method for proving a conditional sentence is to show that by assuming that hypothesis (A) is true, then the conclusion (B) can be proven from that assumption. Therefore, for the purpose of the proof, assume A.

Because A refers to the overall sentence, this means that assuming A is the same as assuming "If A then B". Therefore, in assuming A, we have assumed both A and "If A then B". From these, we can obtain B by modus ponens. Therefore, A implies B and we have proved "If this sentence is true, then you suck big black cocks." is true. Therefore you suck big black cocks.

Isn't it easier to assume B and set A to a don't care state?

>>2
Or even simpler, to point out that since the language contains a Tarski truth-predicate, it cannot be consistent.

le wittgenstein face

>>1

modus ponens

more like modus penis

>>4
The intellectual retard.

Did you know that CIA is a giant drug trafficking, pedophilia and torture organization? Google for "the FINDERS" and how the CIA acknowledged them as legal and shut the case down.
These people torture, rape and kill your children and it is perfectly legal.

Recall from high school statistics: P(B|A)P(A)=P(B^A)

Where
P(B)=Pr{you suck big black cock}
P(A)=Pr{a is true}
P(B|A)=Pr{you sucking blog black cock given that A is true}
Since A and B are independent events, P(B|A)P(A)=P(A)P(B).
Therefore, P(B|A)=P(B)

Since you are a nigger fetching faggot, we know that P(B)=100%, so the chance of you sucking black cock given that A is true is always 100%.

Man, take a look at all those logic 101 students here.

>>8

Since A and B are independent events

Certainly not.

>>10
Who are you quoting?

>>11
Nice dubs bro

>>9
Haven't posted before here, but nigga plz. What do you want to know about logic or probability theory?