Unknown Kanji
- Thread starter sl0815
- Start date
hebiichigo
ナイスメルヘン！
- 7 Feb 2005
- 449
- 7
Isn't it the simplified Chinese or something? I don't know, since I don't know Chinese. But I think it is Love.
Edit// oh, so it is.. I'm always late
Edit// oh, so it is.. I'm always late
- 17 Sep 2005
- 6,017
- 1,970
It's not in my kanji dictionary, either, but I agree 100% that it must be "ai" for love. Only it's not a variant commonly used in Japan.
Check out this site, which was so generously listed by lexico on the thread "Dictionary of Chinese Characters". Your kanji is here if you scroll the list of variants down a bit. There is no doubt that your mystery kanji is indeed "ai" for love.
Check out this site, which was so generously listed by lexico on the thread "Dictionary of Chinese Characters". Your kanji is here if you scroll the list of variants down a bit. There is no doubt that your mystery kanji is indeed "ai" for love.
Last edited:
lexico
後輩
- 22 Dec 2004
- 2,584
- 155
I don't see the simplified ai4 either; just a red, point 7 character box. Chaning ecoding to either of "Chinese Simplified (HZ/GB2312/18030)" options makes no difference to the blank box. I wonder if it has to do with system default language setting.
Initially (p, q) has the four possible combinations of truth values (T,T), (T,F), (F,T), (F,F) where T: true, F: false. In this case, statements p, and q are such that a true p will result in a a true q which leads to a false p, hence a contradiction is reached. Similarly, a false p will lead to a false q resulting in a true p, another contradiction.
This confirmation/denial by the first statement resulting in the sustaining/flipping of the next which in turn negates the first was possible only because of symmetry. The symmetry will break down if the degree of certainty had more than the two states of absolute truth or absolute falsehood; in other words, the exclusion of the middle might have caused the fall into the pit.
Therefore, I think (p, q) might not a true paradox, but with an unstated quantification of certainty "I am very certain that..." postulated in each statement, might very well stand together with no clash in logic. CT: certainly true, CF: certainly false, and UT: unsure if true, UF: unsure if false. Hence the original sig and paired truth values can be rewritten;
p': [I am very certain that] p (= thenext sentence is true).
q': [I am very certain that] q (= the previous sentence is false).
T p'=CT p -> T q'=CT q -> F p'=UT p -> UT q'= UT q... After some damping like swinging doors, the result (UT, UT) becomes a stable truth state.
F p'=UT p -> UT q'=UT q -> UF p'=UF p -> UF q'=UF q... The result (UF, UF) is also stable.
So there is no paradox; the single person who seemingly says paradoxical statements is now in the gray area, where he confesses to his ignorance and does a lot of thinking.
-----------------------------------------
Firefox was it ? It slows me down too much.
First must be considered who is/are the speaker(s). If p and q were said by two different speakers, they can argue, but there is no inherent paradox as different people can think differently. If they were one person, then it becomes interesting whether any person in his right mind can say two statements that are conradicting one another.sl0815---takakoo said:
Initially (p, q) has the four possible combinations of truth values (T,T), (T,F), (F,T), (F,F) where T: true, F: false. In this case, statements p, and q are such that a true p will result in a a true q which leads to a false p, hence a contradiction is reached. Similarly, a false p will lead to a false q resulting in a true p, another contradiction.
This confirmation/denial by the first statement resulting in the sustaining/flipping of the next which in turn negates the first was possible only because of symmetry. The symmetry will break down if the degree of certainty had more than the two states of absolute truth or absolute falsehood; in other words, the exclusion of the middle might have caused the fall into the pit.
Therefore, I think (p, q) might not a true paradox, but with an unstated quantification of certainty "I am very certain that..." postulated in each statement, might very well stand together with no clash in logic. CT: certainly true, CF: certainly false, and UT: unsure if true, UF: unsure if false. Hence the original sig and paired truth values can be rewritten;
p': [I am very certain that] p (= thenext sentence is true).
q': [I am very certain that] q (= the previous sentence is false).
T p'=CT p -> T q'=CT q -> F p'=UT p -> UT q'= UT q... After some damping like swinging doors, the result (UT, UT) becomes a stable truth state.
F p'=UT p -> UT q'=UT q -> UF p'=UF p -> UF q'=UF q... The result (UF, UF) is also stable.
So there is no paradox; the single person who seemingly says paradoxical statements is now in the gray area, where he confesses to his ignorance and does a lot of thinking.
-----------------------------------------
Firefox was it ? It slows me down too much.
Last edited:
Glenn
一切皆苦
- 8 Jan 2004
- 7,842
- 200
Hmm... I'm using the default encoding, which should be Shift JIS, so I guess it's a browser issue. I'll input some simplified Chinese characters for you to see what I'm talking about: 見 愛 ? 无 ? ?.
It does alright converting, but sometimes it can't, and I get ? in its place, as was the case with the simplified character for 両 龍 and 儉.
It does alright converting, but sometimes it can't, and I get ? in its place, as was the case with the simplified character for 両 龍 and 儉.
