“I’ll see you as soon as I see you” is an occasionally-provided phrase that sounds entirely uninformative and also tautologically true. But if, in truth, I will certainly not check out you ever, is the statement true or false?

Similarly:


It is shaped, sir, choose itself, and it is as wide as it hath breadth.

You are watching: Ill see you when i see you

Would this self-referential tautology be true if it was not used to an alligator but rather to, say, love (which has actually no form or breadth, other than maybe metaphorically)?


Reyemile:

“I’ll view you once I view you” is an occasionally-offered expression that sounds completely unindevelopmental and tautologically true. But if, in reality, I will not watch you ever before, is the statement true or false?

It is true.

And if you really don’t understand also what this idiom suggests, it indicates that I am am not going to make a date or appointment to view you aobtain.


njtt:

It is true.

Why?

And if you really don’t understand what this idiom implies, it suggests that I am am not going to make a date or appointment to check out you aacquire.

Duh.


I’ll see you when I see you.

If I watch you aget, then I have actually checked out you at the moment when I witnessed you. Statement is true.

If I carry out NOT check out you aacquire, then I have not viewed you, yet because I haven’t seen you, it isn’t pertinent to the statement in question. Statement is still true.

For a really fun twist, you have the right to likewise take into consideration that “seeing” doesn’t call for the participation of the watched.

So Reyemile could be a corpse, and therefore not view njtt, yet njtt goes to Reyemile’s open-casket funeral, and sees them aobtain. hijinks ensue.


njtt October 30, 2013, 1:32am #5
Reyemile:

Duh.

Learn to alert things favor italics when you read.

Incidentally, the second instance is likewise true, somepoint favor love, that has no breadth is indeed simply as as wide as it hath breadth. 0=0


leahcim October 30, 2013, 1:54am #6
Reyemile:

“I’ll view you once I check out you” is an occasionally-supplied expression that sounds entirely uninformative and tautologically true. But if, in reality, I will certainly not check out you ever, is the statement true or false?

It is a vacuous fact.


rich06 October 30, 2013, 2:07am #7

Used to good impact in the film Gallipoli … http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallipoli_%281981_film%29Archy Hamilton: I’ll see you as soon as I see you.

Frank Dunne: Yeah. Not if I see you first.

http://www.quotes.net/mquote/35333


glee October 30, 2013, 2:30am #8

Wherever I go, there I am.

*


simster October 30, 2013, 2:38am #9
*
glee:

Wherever before I go, there I am.

*

Stalker’s twist - Wherever before you go, there I am


Eleusis October 30, 2013, 2:45am #10

Yeah, the answer is “never”.

I’ll view you never before so I’ll check out you never.


Oly October 30, 2013, 4:21am #11
*
rich06:

Used to good impact in the film Gallipoli … http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallipoli_%281981_film%29Archy Hamilton: I’ll view you when I watch you.

Frank Dunne: Yeah. Not if I watch you initially.

http://www.quotes.net/mquote/35333

I’ve never construed what that reply expected. Please describe if you have actually an concept.

The nearemainder I might number is that it was a means of friendly chops busting by Frank (and also later on in the movie Archie) replying that if Frank (later Archie) sees Archie (later on Frank) before Archie (later Frank) sees Frank (later Archie), then Frank (later on Archie) will certainly duck out of the method so that Archie (later on Frank) never before in fact sees Frank (later on Archie). But that still would certainly not negate the initial statement.

Then I’ve likewise wondered if it might have actually been simply a kind of verbal 1-2 that remained in prevalent parlance at the time? Perhaps an anachronistic Aussieism? Or simply made up by the screenwriter? I’ve never before heard that reply all over yet in that movie.


Siam_Sam October 30, 2013, 4:23am #12

It is what it is.


Oly October 30, 2013, 4:43am #13
Satan"s Spawn:

It is what it is.

Yeah. Not if it’s not.


j_sum1 October 30, 2013, 4:53am #14

See you laterNot if I check out you first

A sensibly common retort literally meaning “I don’t desire anything to carry out through you and will stop you if I am able to”. Usually its humourous undertones are interpreted and it is perceived as mild banter.

Extended to the “See you when I see you” line of Gallipoli provides much less sense if taken literally. But given that both lines are intended quips it is not an implausible line.

You’ll understand once you understand.


bengangmo October 30, 2013, 4:59am #15
Oly:

I’ve never before construed what that reply supposed. Please explain if you have actually an idea.

The nearemainder I could number is that it was a method of friendly chops busting by Frank (and also later on in the movie Archie) replying that if Frank (later Archie) sees Archie (later on Frank) before Archie (later Frank) sees Frank (later Archie), then Frank (later on Archie) will certainly duck out of the means so that Archie (later on Frank) never in truth sees Frank (later on Archie). But that still would not negate the initial statement.

Then I’ve likewise wondered if it may have been just a kind of verbal 1-2 that was in widespread parlance at the time? Perhaps an anachronistic Aussieism? Or simply comprised by the screenwriter? I’ve never heard that reply almost everywhere but in that movie.

Not sure about it’s usage at the time the film was set but a few things that might assist you…

I have actually offered itIt is typical of the sort of humour you would certainly expectThe scene (if I remember correctly) was rather touching and touching - one was going off to his expected death, and typical of antipodean humour, they didn’t want to acquire all soppy and also emotional - one is saying goodbye in a way that expected they didn’t mean to accomplish aget - and the various other is replying (essentially) - well I don’t desire to view you anyway!! (in some form of gallows humour)

Addressing the interpretation of the actual expression -

It basically suggests - well, I’m not sure what my plans are, or once we’ll gain back together. Let’s not make a date, yet fairly agree to get together aobtain once the stars align - which offered that we relocate in the exact same circles won’t be that long


njtt:

Learn to alert things favor italics as soon as you read.

Incidentally, the second example is also true, something like love, that has actually no breadth is indeed simply as as broad as it hath breadth. 0=0

As someone that works generally through databases, I’m going to need to disagree via you tright here. Love doesn’t have a identified breadth of 0; the whole concept of breadth is undefined for something abstract prefer love. Therefore, the breadth of love is, by database convention, NULL, and NULL != NULL. The idea of the breadth of love is as meaningmuch less and uncharacterized as, say, the grumpiness of blue, or the zondliness of the UN.

Whether this statement about breadth is additionally true for a mathematical line is left as as exercise for the reader, although I would certainly suggest that since it has actually a defined width of 0, it is true.


As someone who interacts via high level corporate monitoring and customers I regularly hear the phase “I’ll watch you once I watch you” or something comparable all the moment. Typically it means “Can’t gain to you now I’m busy fighting other fires; I’ll acquire earlier to you once I have the moment or remind me following time we run into each various other.” Of course running right into these males is a rare occurrence.

Yes it’s snarky statement, but if I were to reply ago through a smart ass comment choose “Not if I see you first” I’d obtain a moment of there time, simply sufficient time to gain both barrels of their rage and also not get any type of movement on my request.


Oly:

I’ve never before understood what that reply expected. Please describe if you have actually an principle.

The nearemainder I can number is that it was a means of friendly chops busting by Frank (and later in the movie Archie) replying that if Frank (later on Archie) sees Archie (later on Frank) prior to Archie (later on Frank) sees Frank (later Archie), then Frank (later on Archie) will duck out of the method so that Archie (later on Frank) never in reality sees Frank (later Archie). But that still would certainly not negate the initial statement.

Then I’ve also wondered if it might have been simply a type of verbal 1-2 that was in widespread parlance at the time? Perhaps an anachronistic Aussieism? Or simply comprised by the screenwriter? I’ve never heard that reply everywhere yet in that movie.

It is the majority of often offered just as a little bit of meaningmuch less banter, however ‘not if I view you first’ has a tendency to suggest “you won’t see me at all, because if I view you first, I’ll avoid you”.


Think of it as utilizing some of the maxims of conversational implicature:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicature

First, notice that it’s true of any kind of 2 world as soon as they part, no issue how shortly they will check out each various other and also exactly how a lot they want to see each various other. Imagine a young couple in love. As he leaves the bedroom to go to the bathroom, he states to her, “Well, I’ll check out you when I’ll view you.” She should absolutely be worried what he suggests by that. And yet it’s true, so why should she be?

It’s because among the maxims of conversational implicature is that you don’t say things that convey no new information. For him to say that in that case implies that it’s new indevelopment. She has to think, “What does he intend by saying that?” Similarly, once 2 world component via no plans to meet aacquire, as soon as one of them claims, “Well, I’ll watch you as soon as I’ll view you,” he inhas a tendency to suggest that he can’t say, “Well, I’ll watch you.” He doesn’t understand if they will certainly ever before accomplish aacquire (or perhaps he knows that they probably will, however he can’t say just when it will be).

See more: What Is Java Plug-In Ssv Helper, What Is Java Tm Plug

People frequently say points that make no sense as a statement making use of simply logic. Mere mathematical logic doesn’t describe whatever we say. You have to consider many kind of various other things, consisting of the maxims of conversational implicature.