History Main / LogicBomb

15th Feb '17 9:25:39 PM Game_Fan
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

* [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel%27s_Horn Gabriel's Horn]] is a mathematical object that has a finite volume but an ''infinite'' surface area.
29th Jan '17 8:08:16 PM Game_Fan
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* ''TabletopGame/MagicTheGathering'' has the famous combo of Humility and Opalescence. Opalescence turns all other enchantments into creatures which retain the effect of the enchantment, and Humility is an enchantment that turns all creatures into 1/1 and removes their special abilities. Opalescence turns Humility into a creature, which means Humility is now removing its own passive ability to remove the passive abilities of things. Oh, did you notice that Opalescence doesn't turn itself into a creature, and cast another one to fix that oversight? Well, now it gets ''really'' complicated. The errata for how just these two cards interact is among the most complicated in the game, and begins with the disconcertingly specific statement, "This is the '''current''' interaction between Humility and Opalescence".

to:

* ''TabletopGame/MagicTheGathering''
** In universe:
*** A logic bomb nearly destroys the plane of Ravnica. As a way to keep order on the plane the Guildpact was made empowering ten guilds. Among these are the Boros, who serve as the army, and the Dimir, a secret guild that performs espionage. When the head of the Dimir goes crazy tries to conquer the plane he's arrested by a Boros officer and taken to be accountable for his crimes. Except that keeping the Dimir a secret is part of the Guildpact and so is empowering the Boros to protect the plane. The contradiction causes the Guildpact to fail, throwing the entire plane into chaos.
** In the game:
***
''TabletopGame/MagicTheGathering'' has the famous combo of Humility and Opalescence. Opalescence turns all other enchantments into creatures which retain the effect of the enchantment, and Humility is an enchantment that turns all creatures into 1/1 and removes their special abilities. Opalescence turns Humility into a creature, which means Humility is now removing its own passive ability to remove the passive abilities of things. Oh, did you notice that Opalescence doesn't turn itself into a creature, and cast another one to fix that oversight? Well, now it gets ''really'' complicated. The errata for how just these two cards interact is among the most complicated in the game, and begins with the disconcertingly specific statement, "This is the '''current''' interaction between Humility and Opalescence".
25th Jan '17 11:12:55 AM Game_Fan
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* The Ancient Greek philosopher Zeno of Elea proposed [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno_paradox several famous logical paradoxes]] which completely baffled his contemporaries. They reference ideas about time and its relation to objects in motion that was beyond Greek Logicians of the day. Contemporary philosophers who tried to refute his conclusions found themselves hitting the brick wall which was the most basic rule of Logic: unsound conclusions are reached by unsound methods. By the Logical Method, it wasn't enough to simply state that his conclusions were incorrect; they needed to prove ''why'' they were incorrect, by analyzing his reasoning and locating the flaw in it. And yet, as near as any of his contemporaries could determine, there was ''no'' flaw in Zeno's reasoning. Common sense dictated that Zeno's conclusions were unsupportable, even ridiculous - everyone ''knew'' a man could outrun a turtle, for example - but the reasoning he used to come to those conclusions was sound...which, by the Logical Method, meant that they had to be correct. Not even Aristotle could resolve the dichotomy; his solution was simply not to engage, out of fear of getting trapped in an infinite loop.

to:

* The Ancient Greek philosopher Zeno of Elea proposed [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno_paradox several famous logical paradoxes]] which completely baffled his contemporaries. They reference ideas about time and its relation to objects describe seemingly simple scenarios in motion ways that was beyond Greek Logicians resulted in obvious contradictions. Some of the day. Contemporary philosophers who tried to refute his conclusions found themselves hitting the brick wall which was the most basic rule of Logic: unsound conclusions are reached by unsound methods. By the Logical Method, it wasn't enough to simply state that his conclusions these were incorrect; they needed to prove ''why'' they were incorrect, resolved by analyzing his reasoning and locating the flaw in it. And yet, as near as any of his contemporaries could determine, there but the paradoxes of motion are still debated to this day. This was ''no'' flaw in a very serious problem because Zeno's reasoning. Common sense dictated premises seemed undeniable and his arguments had proper logical form yet the results were clearly false. To many this suggested that Zeno's conclusions were unsupportable, even ridiculous - everyone ''knew'' a man could outrun a turtle, for example - but the reasoning he used to come to those conclusions logic itself was sound...which, by the Logical Method, meant that they had to be correct. Not even Aristotle could resolve the dichotomy; his solution was simply not to engage, out of fear of getting trapped in an infinite loop.broken.



** On the other other hand, the solutions to many of these are now obvious to anyone who understands more modern concepts as infinite sums and limits. [[BoringButPractical Or the humble zero.]]
*** The problem resides that infinite sums and limits do NOT solve the paradox between the Logical Method and RealLife (where we know Achilles will outrun the turtle), only explain the problem very well. JorgeLuisBorges explains it at his essay "The perpetual Race of Achilles and the Turtle":
--> Suffice it to fix the velocity of Achilles at one meter pers second in order to establish the time he'll need. 10 +1 + 1/10 + 1/100 + 1/100 ... +1/n... + 1/infinite. The limit of the sum of this infinite progression is twelve (more exactly, eleven and one fifth; more exactly, eleven and twenty-eights), which is never attained. That is to say, the hero's stretch may be infinite and he'll run it forever, but his course will give out before covering twelve miles and his eternity will never see the end of twelve seconds. This methodical dissolution... is not really hostile to the problem: rather, it is to imagine it well.

to:

** On A few refutations to the other other hand, paradox of motion do exist:
*** Aristotle's was quite simple. Zeno assumes that time and distance are infinitely divisible but there is no evidence for such a claim. Without this assumption
the solutions to many of these are now obvious to anyone who understands more modern concepts as infinite sums and limits. [[BoringButPractical Or the humble zero.entire paradox collapses. [[OccamsRazor An unjustified claim that results in absurdity can be safely ignored.]]
*** The Modern calculus attacks the problem resides from a different position arguing that that Zeno's logic really is flawed as no rigorous method for handling infinite sums and limits do NOT solve existed at the paradox between the Logical Method and RealLife (where we know Achilles will outrun the turtle), only explain the problem very well. JorgeLuisBorges explains it at his essay "The perpetual Race of Achilles and the Turtle":
--> Suffice it to fix the velocity of Achilles at one meter pers second in order to establish the
time. If time he'll need. 10 +1 + 1/10 + 1/100 + 1/100 ... +1/n... + 1/infinite. The limit of the sum of this infinite progression is twelve (more exactly, eleven and one fifth; more exactly, eleven and twenty-eights), which is never attained. That is to say, the hero's stretch may be infinite and he'll run it forever, but his course will give out before covering twelve miles and his eternity will never see the end of twelve seconds. This methodical dissolution... space are infinitely divisible then ordinary arithmetic is not really hostile appropriate to understand or describe them. Indeed the problem: rather, it is to imagine it well. paradoxes of motion pose questions that are basic examples for introductory calculus.
23rd Jan '17 6:42:04 AM ZanderSchubert
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Asking some forms of mechanical calculator to divide by zero doesn't break them, rather it causes them to loop infinitely (as the computer expects to perform the given task an infinite number of times). The machines parts will whirr around quite happily until you tell it to stop.

to:

* Asking some forms of mechanical calculator to divide by zero doesn't break them, rather it causes them to loop infinitely (as the computer expects to perform the given task an infinite number of times). The machines parts will whirr around quite happily until you tell it to stop. You can see this in action [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=443B6f_4n6k here]].
22nd Jan '17 11:59:00 AM Jeduthun
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* DontShootTheMessage is a good example of a Logic Bomb that surfaces often in everyday life, at least where people's political or religious convictions are concerned. Let's say, to give a couple of examples, you're discussing Roman Catholic priests who molest children (and [[FriendToPsychos the faithful Catholics who attempt to cover up these incidents]], of course), or maybe the [[BourgeoisBohemian Bourgeois Bohemians]] who are such an image problem for modern American liberalism. Such people are said to be bad because [[{{Hypocrite}} they do not live up to the ideals they preach]] - but they are more often condemned by their ideological opponents than by decent people on their side who you'd think would urge the hypocrites to StopBeingStereotypical. Ideological opponents, of course, criticize a given movement because they think it's inherently bad. But if you don't actually believe in an ideology you say you believe in, and that ideology is bad, then logically you must be good. But it's unethical to live a lie, so you must be bad - even if what you're lying about is something that's bad in the first place, in which case undermining it is good, and so on ''ad infinitum''. Humorously summed up by Creator/OscarWilde in ''Theatre/TheImportanceOfBeingEarnest'', when he has the character of Cecily say: "I hope you have not been leading a double life, pretending to be wicked and being really good all the time. That would be hypocrisy."

to:

* DontShootTheMessage is a good example of a Logic Bomb that surfaces often in everyday life, at least where people's political or religious convictions are concerned. Let's say, to give a couple of examples, you're discussing Roman Catholic priests who molest children (and [[FriendToPsychos the faithful Catholics who attempt to cover up these incidents]], of course), or maybe the [[BourgeoisBohemian Bourgeois Bohemians]] who are such an image problem for modern American liberalism. Such people life. {{Hypocrite}}s are said to be bad because [[{{Hypocrite}} they do not live up to the ideals they preach]] preach - but they are more often condemned by their ideological opponents than by decent people on their side who you'd think would urge the hypocrites to StopBeingStereotypical. Ideological opponents, of course, criticize a given movement because they think it's inherently bad. But if you don't actually believe in an ideology you say you believe in, and that ideology is bad, then logically you must be good. But it's unethical to live a lie, so you must be bad - even if what you're lying about is something that's bad in the first place, in which case undermining it is good, and so on ''ad infinitum''. Humorously summed up by Creator/OscarWilde in ''Theatre/TheImportanceOfBeingEarnest'', when he has the character of Cecily say: "I hope you have not been leading a double life, pretending to be wicked and being really good all the time. That would be hypocrisy."
19th Jan '17 2:26:36 AM MrInitialMan
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

* Lal Bihari Mritak tried to do this to the legal system of his native India by kidnapping his cousin, picking fights with and insulting officials, and trying everything he could to get arrested. The reason he did this was that his uncle had bribed an official to get Lal Bihari declared LegallyDead (Mritak means "dead" in Hindi) to seize his land, and if the local officials arrested Lal Bihari, then they'd effectively admit he was still alive.
11th Jan '17 9:45:57 PM Donquill
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

-->'''Miranda''': Stop that! You mixed up everything I said!
-->'''Jade''': Me? You're the one that brought up this paradox.
8th Jan '17 12:34:49 PM nombretomado
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Parodied in ''TopTen'':

to:

* Parodied in ''TopTen'':''ComicBook/TopTen'':



* ''ComicStrip/FoxTrot'': Jason once asked his mother if Marcus could sleep-over. She said that it was all right with her, if it was all right with his father. Asking his father, he's told that it's fine with him, if it was all right with his mother. After the BeatPanel, he's shown consulting several logic books.

to:

* ''ComicStrip/FoxTrot'': ''ComicStrip/FoxTrot'':
**
Jason once asked his mother if Marcus could sleep-over. She said that it was all right with her, if it was all right with his father. Asking his father, he's told that it's fine with him, if it was all right with his mother. After the BeatPanel, he's shown consulting several logic books.



* The long-running Brazilian comic series Pt/TurmaDaMonica liked to use this now and then, often resulting in a CrowningMomentOfFunny. One recent, but nonetheless hilarious use of this happened when the gang was confronted by an {{Expy}} of none other than [[Videogame/FinalFantasyVII Sephiroth]]. He appears, [[ArrogantKungFuGuy saying how ridiculously powerful he is, flying incredibly high]] until one character asks "If you only got a single wing, how come you can fly just fine?". Cue OhCrap and the {{Expy}} [[GravityIsAHarshMistress falling to his doom]].

to:

* The long-running Brazilian comic series Pt/TurmaDaMonica ''Pt/TurmaDaMonica'' liked to use this now and then, often resulting in a CrowningMomentOfFunny. One recent, but nonetheless hilarious use of this happened when the gang was confronted by an {{Expy}} of none other than [[Videogame/FinalFantasyVII Sephiroth]]. He appears, [[ArrogantKungFuGuy saying how ridiculously powerful he is, flying incredibly high]] until one character asks "If you only got a single wing, how come you can fly just fine?". Cue OhCrap and the {{Expy}} [[GravityIsAHarshMistress falling to his doom]].
2nd Jan '17 12:23:38 PM Game_Fan
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

* The fork bomb is another logic bomb used to attack computers. It is a simple program that does nothing but request that the the computer make two copies of it and run them. Exponential growth means that within moments there are millions of copies running and the computer grinds to a halt attempting to deal with them despite the fact that individually they don't do anything. Modern operating systems usually put a stop to this by only allow a limited number of process to run at once.
2nd Jan '17 12:14:33 PM Game_Fan
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* The accusation of "fake news" (popularized in the wake of the 2016 US election). The debate on the fact that the very sites accusing others of fake news are guilty of fake news themselves (the "Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction" thing is the most blarant example), contain a LogicBomb of international proportions. Why should someone known for faking news already be more sincere than the sites they accuse?
This list shows the last 10 events of 409. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Main.LogicBomb