Gold Donor Giveaway! [OPEN]

[FLAMEdex]

What Colour is green?

 

[e]

Col_StaR can't even answer this lmao

 

[redikus]

How big is the universe? Twuaty

 

[e]

How big is the universe? Twuaty

I don't know.

 

[Col_StaR]

Col_StaR can't even answer this lmao

I can't answer this because you're not asking for an answer. You're asking for a question. In fact, you're asking for a question that disproves something that is always true. That is what makes the statement logically invalid, and thus impossible to "answer".

Logical proof to be found below. If you don't like logical arguments, mathematical proofs, or predicate logic, this is your warning!

First, let's disassemble the conditions of the challenge.

"think of a question that can't be answered with 'I don't know.'"

• The format of the challenge asks for a statement in Question-Answer form.
• The Answer of, "I don't know" is given.
• The user is asked to provide a Question which, when applied to the Answer, makes the statement invalid.

Further information can be found from the example given.

"Are you alive?"
"I don't know"

This might sound stupid, but it is logical and "I don't know" could be an answer

• The statement is subject to human interpretation.
• The statement is accepting of factual ignorance.

(I would also like to point out that the example is not, "logical", but rather interpretive. The logic is flawed, as will be explained below).

From here, I can argue that the statement is logically invalid in two ways: the flaw in the Answer statement, or the flaw in the Example.

Answer Statement Argument

Suppose you have a statement in the form of a question and an answer.
Logically valid questions prompt the user with a condition that must be definitively and provably met. Examples include, "What color is the sky?" and "what does 1+1=?". Without a question, there is no answer; an answer without a question is merely a phrase.
Logically valid answers prompt the user with only two sorts of statements: a statement that is definitively and provably correct ("The sky is currently blue" or "1+1=2"), or a statement that is definitively and provably incorrect ("The sky is soybeans" or "1+1=9001"). However, if a definitive answer cannot be given, whether it is definitively and provably correct or definitively and provably incorrect, then the answer can be ignored or avoided. A statement of ignorance is one such way that an answer can be ignored or avoided in lieu of a definitive and provable answer; "I don't know" is an example of a statement of ignorance.

This brings us to the challenge statement. The form of the statement must be one of a Question followed by an Answer. The statement requires that the Question must set forth conditions that must be definitively and provable incorrect by the Answer posed.
However, the phrase, "I don't know" is a statement of ignorance and an avoidance phrase which offers no opportunity for an answer that is definitive and provable. Either no question exists that satisfies the conditions stated (thus the statement "I don't know" is a phrase, not an Answer demanding of a question), or your statement of "I don't know" is unsatisfactory as an Answer, thus the challenge statement was flawed and impossible to complete logically.

Quad Era Demenstrandum (QED), the statement itself is logically invalid.

Example Argument

In the example given, conditions are made whereupon the statement is shown to be available to human interpretation and allowing of intelligence ignorance. Recall that our goal was to find a question that would invalidate the answer of, "I don't know".

Human interpretation allows for a limitless variety of question and answer phrases to be accepted, regardless of how true they may actually be. In the example, it is logically and demonstrably evident that the second speaker is alive, thus their ability to answer; it is assumed that the second speaker is aware of their alive state, lest they be unable to manipulate themselves to speak. However, human interpretation allows for a wide variety of answers to be accepted, whether they are logically or demonstrably true or not. Had the second person replied with, "No" in spite of their clear mortal status, human interpretation may have understood this to be sarcasm, and thus it would have been an acceptable answer. The phrase, "I don't know" also falls under this category, since the first person should be aware of the second person's awareness of their own mortal status based on their ability to give a response at all.
So whether the response is logical and demonstrable or not, human interpretation allows for all non-empirical questions to be acceptable, and thus impossible to disprove.

This leads us to the condition of factual ignorance, the literal state of not knowing the answer. Humans may be one of the most intelligent sentient beings that we are aware of, but we are far from omniscient; the fact that I have to add the qualifier, "that we are aware of" shows that humans do not know everything. Because a single question may only have a few valid answers means that there are an infinite amount of incorrect answers, it is understandable if humans do not posses answers to empirical answers. "I don't know" is a valid answer to an infinite amount of questions.
Factual ignorance then establishes valid logic for all empirical questions.

With human interpretation and intelligence ignorance in mind, we can construct possibilities based on two conditions, the empirical status of the question and the user's knowledge of the answer.

1. The question is empirical, and the user knows the answer.
   • The response "I don't know" can be viewed with Human Interpretation as an example of sarcasm, thus the statement is viewed as legitimate and cannot be disproved.
2. The question is empirical, and the user does not know the answer.
   • The response "I don't know" is legitimate due to Factual Ignorance, thus the statement is viewed as legitimate and cannot be disproved.
3. The question is non-empirical, and the user knows the answer.
   • The response "I don't know" can be viewed with Human Interpretation as an example of sarcasm or rhetoric, thus the statement is viewed as legitimate and cannot be disproved.
4. The question is non-empirical, and the user does not know the answer.
   • The response "I don't know" is legitimate due to Factual Ignorance, thus the statement is viewed as legitimate and cannot be disproved.

It is demonstrated that all of the possible questions are equally valid under the stated conditions as demonstrated by the example given.

Thus, the statement itself cannot be disproved.

Conclusion

No one is winning any gold rank because the challenge statement is impossible to satisfy, as demonstrated by both proofs above. If there is an answer, it will not adhere to the rules or logic that it had established in its own challenge statement and example, thus it would be invalid.

@Aravenn/ Twuaty: I did not answer your challenge. Instead, I just rekt it.

Spoiler: MFW

Source
- Years of rhetoric study.
- 1 semester of Discrete Mathematics in college in the Fall of 2014. I was the top of my class.

 

[Aidan]

I can't answer this because you're not asking for an answer. You're asking for a question. In fact, you're asking for a question that disproves something that is always true. That is what makes the statement logically invalid, and thus impossible to "answer".

Logical proof to be found below. If you don't like logical arguments, mathematical proofs, or predicate logic, this is your warning!

First, let's disassemble the conditions of the challenge.

• The format of the challenge asks for a statement in Question-Answer form.
• The Answer of, "I don't know" is given.
• The user is asked to provide a Question which, when applied to the Answer, makes the statement invalid.

Further information can be found from the example given.

• The statement is subject to human interpretation.
• The statement is accepting of factual ignorance.

(I would also like to point out that the example is not, "logical", but rather interpretive. The logic is flawed, as will be explained below).

From here, I can argue that the statement is logically invalid in two ways: the flaw in the Answer statement, or the flaw in the Example.

Answer Statement Argument

Suppose you have a statement in the form of a question and an answer.
Logically valid questions prompt the user with a condition that must be definitively and provably met. Examples include, "What color is the sky?" and "what does 1+1=?". Without a question, there is no answer; an answer without a question is merely a phrase.
Logically valid answers prompt the user with only two sorts of statements: a statement that is definitively and provably correct ("The sky is currently blue" or "1+1=2"), or a statement that is definitively and provably incorrect ("The sky is soybeans" or "1+1=9001"). However, if a definitive answer cannot be given, whether it is definitively and provably correct or definitively and provably incorrect, then the answer can be ignored or avoided. A statement of ignorance is one such way that an answer can be ignored or avoided in lieu of a definitive and provable answer; "I don't know" is an example of a statement of ignorance.

This brings us to the challenge statement. The form of the statement must be one of a Question followed by an Answer. The statement requires that the Question must set forth conditions that must be definitively and provable incorrect by the Answer posed.
However, the phrase, "I don't know" is a statement of ignorance and an avoidance phrase which offers no opportunity for an answer that is definitive and provable. Either no question exists that satisfies the conditions stated (thus the statement "I don't know" is a phrase, not an Answer demanding of a question), or your statement of "I don't know" is unsatisfactory as an Answer, thus the challenge statement was flawed and impossible to complete logically.

Quad Era Demenstrandum (QED), the statement itself is logically invalid.

Example Argument

In the example given, conditions are made whereupon the statement is shown to be available to human interpretation and allowing of intelligence ignorance. Recall that our goal was to find a question that would invalidate the answer of, "I don't know".

Human interpretation allows for a limitless variety of question and answer phrases to be accepted, regardless of how true they may actually be. In the example, it is logically and demonstrably evident that the second speaker is alive, thus their ability to answer; it is assumed that the second speaker is aware of their alive state, lest they be unable to manipulate themselves to speak. However, human interpretation allows for a wide variety of answers to be accepted, whether they are logically or demonstrably true or not. Had the second person replied with, "No" in spite of their clear mortal status, human interpretation may have understood this to be sarcasm, and thus it would have been an acceptable answer. The phrase, "I don't know" also falls under this category, since the first person should be aware of the second person's awareness of their own mortal status based on their ability to give a response at all.
So whether the response is logical and demonstrable or not, human interpretation allows for all non-empirical questions to be acceptable, and thus impossible to disprove.

This leads us to the condition of factual ignorance, the literal state of not knowing the answer. Humans may be one of the most intelligent sentient beings that we are aware of, but we are far from omniscient; the fact that I have to add the qualifier, "that we are aware of" shows that humans do not know everything. Because a single question may only have a few valid answers means that there are an infinite amount of incorrect answers, it is understandable if humans do not posses answers to empirical answers. "I don't know" is a valid answer to an infinite amount of questions.
Factual ignorance then establishes valid logic for all empirical questions.

With human interpretation and intelligence ignorance in mind, we can construct possibilities based on two conditions, the empirical status of the question and the user's knowledge of the answer.

1. The question is empirical, and the user knows the answer.
   • The response "I don't know" can be viewed with Human Interpretation as an example of sarcasm, thus the statement is viewed as legitimate and cannot be disproved.
2. The question is empirical, and the user does not know the answer.
   • The response "I don't know" is legitimate due to Factual Ignorance, thus the statement is viewed as legitimate and cannot be disproved.
3. The question is non-empirical, and the user knows the answer.
   • The response "I don't know" can be viewed with Human Interpretation as an example of sarcasm or rhetoric, thus the statement is viewed as legitimate and cannot be disproved.
4. The question is non-empirical, and the user does not know the answer.
   • The response "I don't know" is legitimate due to Factual Ignorance, thus the statement is viewed as legitimate and cannot be disproved.

It is demonstrated that all of the possible questions are equally valid under the stated conditions as demonstrated by the example given.

Thus, the statement itself cannot be disproved.

Conclusion

No one is winning any gold rank because the challenge statement is impossible to satisfy, as demonstrated by both proofs above. If there is an answer, it will not adhere to the rules or logic that it had established in its own challenge statement and example, thus it would be invalid.

@Aravenn/ Twuaty: I did not answer your challenge. Instead, I just rekt it.

Spoiler: MFW

Source
- Years of rhetoric study.
- 1 semester of Discrete Mathematics in college in the Fall of 2014. I was the top of my class.

Source
- Google
- Minimal Bing
- Wikipedia

 

[e]

I can't answer this because you're not asking for an answer. You're asking for a question. In fact, you're asking for a question that disproves something that is always true. That is what makes the statement logically invalid, and thus impossible to "answer".

Logical proof to be found below. If you don't like logical arguments, mathematical proofs, or predicate logic, this is your warning!

First, let's disassemble the conditions of the challenge.

• The format of the challenge asks for a statement in Question-Answer form.
• The Answer of, "I don't know" is given.
• The user is asked to provide a Question which, when applied to the Answer, makes the statement invalid.

Further information can be found from the example given.

• The statement is subject to human interpretation.
• The statement is accepting of factual ignorance.

(I would also like to point out that the example is not, "logical", but rather interpretive. The logic is flawed, as will be explained below).

From here, I can argue that the statement is logically invalid in two ways: the flaw in the Answer statement, or the flaw in the Example.

Answer Statement Argument

Suppose you have a statement in the form of a question and an answer.
Logically valid questions prompt the user with a condition that must be definitively and provably met. Examples include, "What color is the sky?" and "what does 1+1=?". Without a question, there is no answer; an answer without a question is merely a phrase.
Logically valid answers prompt the user with only two sorts of statements: a statement that is definitively and provably correct ("The sky is currently blue" or "1+1=2"), or a statement that is definitively and provably incorrect ("The sky is soybeans" or "1+1=9001"). However, if a definitive answer cannot be given, whether it is definitively and provably correct or definitively and provably incorrect, then the answer can be ignored or avoided. A statement of ignorance is one such way that an answer can be ignored or avoided in lieu of a definitive and provable answer; "I don't know" is an example of a statement of ignorance.

This brings us to the challenge statement. The form of the statement must be one of a Question followed by an Answer. The statement requires that the Question must set forth conditions that must be definitively and provable incorrect by the Answer posed.
However, the phrase, "I don't know" is a statement of ignorance and an avoidance phrase which offers no opportunity for an answer that is definitive and provable. Either no question exists that satisfies the conditions stated (thus the statement "I don't know" is a phrase, not an Answer demanding of a question), or your statement of "I don't know" is unsatisfactory as an Answer, thus the challenge statement was flawed and impossible to complete logically.

Quad Era Demenstrandum (QED), the statement itself is logically invalid.

Example Argument

In the example given, conditions are made whereupon the statement is shown to be available to human interpretation and allowing of intelligence ignorance. Recall that our goal was to find a question that would invalidate the answer of, "I don't know".

Human interpretation allows for a limitless variety of question and answer phrases to be accepted, regardless of how true they may actually be. In the example, it is logically and demonstrably evident that the second speaker is alive, thus their ability to answer; it is assumed that the second speaker is aware of their alive state, lest they be unable to manipulate themselves to speak. However, human interpretation allows for a wide variety of answers to be accepted, whether they are logically or demonstrably true or not. Had the second person replied with, "No" in spite of their clear mortal status, human interpretation may have understood this to be sarcasm, and thus it would have been an acceptable answer. The phrase, "I don't know" also falls under this category, since the first person should be aware of the second person's awareness of their own mortal status based on their ability to give a response at all.
So whether the response is logical and demonstrable or not, human interpretation allows for all non-empirical questions to be acceptable, and thus impossible to disprove.

This leads us to the condition of factual ignorance, the literal state of not knowing the answer. Humans may be one of the most intelligent sentient beings that we are aware of, but we are far from omniscient; the fact that I have to add the qualifier, "that we are aware of" shows that humans do not know everything. Because a single question may only have a few valid answers means that there are an infinite amount of incorrect answers, it is understandable if humans do not posses answers to empirical answers. "I don't know" is a valid answer to an infinite amount of questions.
Factual ignorance then establishes valid logic for all empirical questions.

With human interpretation and intelligence ignorance in mind, we can construct possibilities based on two conditions, the empirical status of the question and the user's knowledge of the answer.

1. The question is empirical, and the user knows the answer.
   • The response "I don't know" can be viewed with Human Interpretation as an example of sarcasm, thus the statement is viewed as legitimate and cannot be disproved.
2. The question is empirical, and the user does not know the answer.
   • The response "I don't know" is legitimate due to Factual Ignorance, thus the statement is viewed as legitimate and cannot be disproved.
3. The question is non-empirical, and the user knows the answer.
   • The response "I don't know" can be viewed with Human Interpretation as an example of sarcasm or rhetoric, thus the statement is viewed as legitimate and cannot be disproved.
4. The question is non-empirical, and the user does not know the answer.
   • The response "I don't know" is legitimate due to Factual Ignorance, thus the statement is viewed as legitimate and cannot be disproved.

It is demonstrated that all of the possible questions are equally valid under the stated conditions as demonstrated by the example given.

Thus, the statement itself cannot be disproved.

Conclusion

No one is winning any gold rank because the challenge statement is impossible to satisfy, as demonstrated by both proofs above. If there is an answer, it will not adhere to the rules or logic that it had established in its own challenge statement and example, thus it would be invalid.

@Aravenn/ Twuaty: I did not answer your challenge. Instead, I just rekt it.

Spoiler: MFW

Source
- Years of rhetoric study.
- 1 semester of Discrete Mathematics in college in the Fall of 2014. I was the top of my class.

I don't know.

Edit: Col_StaR is a party pooper

 

[KiDD]

Source
- Google
- Minimal Bing
- Wikipedia

Nope,

If you don't like logical arguments, mathematical proofs, or predicate logic, this is your warning!

I can't answer this because you're not asking for an answer. You're asking for a question. In fact, you're asking for a question that disproves something that is always true. That is what makes the statement logically invalid, and thus impossible to "answer".

Logical proof to be found below. If you don't like logical arguments, mathematical proofs, or predicate logic, this is your warning!

First, let's disassemble the conditions of the challenge.

• The format of the challenge asks for a statement in Question-Answer form.
• The Answer of, "I don't know" is given.
• The user is asked to provide a Question which, when applied to the Answer, makes the statement invalid.

Further information can be found from the example given.

• The statement is subject to human interpretation.
• The statement is accepting of factual ignorance.

(I would also like to point out that the example is not, "logical", but rather interpretive. The logic is flawed, as will be explained below).

From here, I can argue that the statement is logically invalid in two ways: the flaw in the Answer statement, or the flaw in the Example.

Answer Statement Argument

Suppose you have a statement in the form of a question and an answer.
Logically valid questions prompt the user with a condition that must be definitively and provably met. Examples include, "What color is the sky?" and "what does 1+1=?". Without a question, there is no answer; an answer without a question is merely a phrase.
Logically valid answers prompt the user with only two sorts of statements: a statement that is definitively and provably correct ("The sky is currently blue" or "1+1=2"), or a statement that is definitively and provably incorrect ("The sky is soybeans" or "1+1=9001"). However, if a definitive answer cannot be given, whether it is definitively and provably correct or definitively and provably incorrect, then the answer can be ignored or avoided. A statement of ignorance is one such way that an answer can be ignored or avoided in lieu of a definitive and provable answer; "I don't know" is an example of a statement of ignorance.

This brings us to the challenge statement. The form of the statement must be one of a Question followed by an Answer. The statement requires that the Question must set forth conditions that must be definitively and provable incorrect by the Answer posed.
However, the phrase, "I don't know" is a statement of ignorance and an avoidance phrase which offers no opportunity for an answer that is definitive and provable. Either no question exists that satisfies the conditions stated (thus the statement "I don't know" is a phrase, not an Answer demanding of a question), or your statement of "I don't know" is unsatisfactory as an Answer, thus the challenge statement was flawed and impossible to complete logically.

Quad Era Demenstrandum (QED), the statement itself is logically invalid.

Example Argument

In the example given, conditions are made whereupon the statement is shown to be available to human interpretation and allowing of intelligence ignorance. Recall that our goal was to find a question that would invalidate the answer of, "I don't know".

Human interpretation allows for a limitless variety of question and answer phrases to be accepted, regardless of how true they may actually be. In the example, it is logically and demonstrably evident that the second speaker is alive, thus their ability to answer; it is assumed that the second speaker is aware of their alive state, lest they be unable to manipulate themselves to speak. However, human interpretation allows for a wide variety of answers to be accepted, whether they are logically or demonstrably true or not. Had the second person replied with, "No" in spite of their clear mortal status, human interpretation may have understood this to be sarcasm, and thus it would have been an acceptable answer. The phrase, "I don't know" also falls under this category, since the first person should be aware of the second person's awareness of their own mortal status based on their ability to give a response at all.
So whether the response is logical and demonstrable or not, human interpretation allows for all non-empirical questions to be acceptable, and thus impossible to disprove.

This leads us to the condition of factual ignorance, the literal state of not knowing the answer. Humans may be one of the most intelligent sentient beings that we are aware of, but we are far from omniscient; the fact that I have to add the qualifier, "that we are aware of" shows that humans do not know everything. Because a single question may only have a few valid answers means that there are an infinite amount of incorrect answers, it is understandable if humans do not posses answers to empirical answers. "I don't know" is a valid answer to an infinite amount of questions.
Factual ignorance then establishes valid logic for all empirical questions.

With human interpretation and intelligence ignorance in mind, we can construct possibilities based on two conditions, the empirical status of the question and the user's knowledge of the answer.

1. The question is empirical, and the user knows the answer.
   • The response "I don't know" can be viewed with Human Interpretation as an example of sarcasm, thus the statement is viewed as legitimate and cannot be disproved.
2. The question is empirical, and the user does not know the answer.
   • The response "I don't know" is legitimate due to Factual Ignorance, thus the statement is viewed as legitimate and cannot be disproved.
3. The question is non-empirical, and the user knows the answer.
   • The response "I don't know" can be viewed with Human Interpretation as an example of sarcasm or rhetoric, thus the statement is viewed as legitimate and cannot be disproved.
4. The question is non-empirical, and the user does not know the answer.
   • The response "I don't know" is legitimate due to Factual Ignorance, thus the statement is viewed as legitimate and cannot be disproved.

It is demonstrated that all of the possible questions are equally valid under the stated conditions as demonstrated by the example given.

Thus, the statement itself cannot be disproved.

Conclusion

No one is winning any gold rank because the challenge statement is impossible to satisfy, as demonstrated by both proofs above. If there is an answer, it will not adhere to the rules or logic that it had established in its own challenge statement and example, thus it would be invalid.

@Aravenn/ Twuaty: I did not answer your challenge. Instead, I just rekt it.

Spoiler: MFW

Source
- Years of rhetoric study.
- 1 semester of Discrete Mathematics in college in the Fall of 2014. I was the top of my class.

Getting the green, heh.

 

[Zeff]

So we are all agreeing that I should get the gold.

Anyone want to try and give me a good reason why I shouldn't

 

[Zinc // Akash754]

I can't answer this because you're not asking for an answer. You're asking for a question. In fact, you're asking for a question that disproves something that is always true. That is what makes the statement logically invalid, and thus impossible to "answer".

Logical proof to be found below. If you don't like logical arguments, mathematical proofs, or predicate logic, this is your warning!

First, let's disassemble the conditions of the challenge.

• The format of the challenge asks for a statement in Question-Answer form.
• The Answer of, "I don't know" is given.
• The user is asked to provide a Question which, when applied to the Answer, makes the statement invalid.

Further information can be found from the example given.

• The statement is subject to human interpretation.
• The statement is accepting of factual ignorance.

(I would also like to point out that the example is not, "logical", but rather interpretive. The logic is flawed, as will be explained below).

From here, I can argue that the statement is logically invalid in two ways: the flaw in the Answer statement, or the flaw in the Example.

Answer Statement Argument

Suppose you have a statement in the form of a question and an answer.
Logically valid questions prompt the user with a condition that must be definitively and provably met. Examples include, "What color is the sky?" and "what does 1+1=?". Without a question, there is no answer; an answer without a question is merely a phrase.
Logically valid answers prompt the user with only two sorts of statements: a statement that is definitively and provably correct ("The sky is currently blue" or "1+1=2"), or a statement that is definitively and provably incorrect ("The sky is soybeans" or "1+1=9001"). However, if a definitive answer cannot be given, whether it is definitively and provably correct or definitively and provably incorrect, then the answer can be ignored or avoided. A statement of ignorance is one such way that an answer can be ignored or avoided in lieu of a definitive and provable answer; "I don't know" is an example of a statement of ignorance.

This brings us to the challenge statement. The form of the statement must be one of a Question followed by an Answer. The statement requires that the Question must set forth conditions that must be definitively and provable incorrect by the Answer posed.
However, the phrase, "I don't know" is a statement of ignorance and an avoidance phrase which offers no opportunity for an answer that is definitive and provable. Either no question exists that satisfies the conditions stated (thus the statement "I don't know" is a phrase, not an Answer demanding of a question), or your statement of "I don't know" is unsatisfactory as an Answer, thus the challenge statement was flawed and impossible to complete logically.

Quad Era Demenstrandum (QED), the statement itself is logically invalid.

Example Argument

In the example given, conditions are made whereupon the statement is shown to be available to human interpretation and allowing of intelligence ignorance. Recall that our goal was to find a question that would invalidate the answer of, "I don't know".

Human interpretation allows for a limitless variety of question and answer phrases to be accepted, regardless of how true they may actually be. In the example, it is logically and demonstrably evident that the second speaker is alive, thus their ability to answer; it is assumed that the second speaker is aware of their alive state, lest they be unable to manipulate themselves to speak. However, human interpretation allows for a wide variety of answers to be accepted, whether they are logically or demonstrably true or not. Had the second person replied with, "No" in spite of their clear mortal status, human interpretation may have understood this to be sarcasm, and thus it would have been an acceptable answer. The phrase, "I don't know" also falls under this category, since the first person should be aware of the second person's awareness of their own mortal status based on their ability to give a response at all.
So whether the response is logical and demonstrable or not, human interpretation allows for all non-empirical questions to be acceptable, and thus impossible to disprove.

This leads us to the condition of factual ignorance, the literal state of not knowing the answer. Humans may be one of the most intelligent sentient beings that we are aware of, but we are far from omniscient; the fact that I have to add the qualifier, "that we are aware of" shows that humans do not know everything. Because a single question may only have a few valid answers means that there are an infinite amount of incorrect answers, it is understandable if humans do not posses answers to empirical answers. "I don't know" is a valid answer to an infinite amount of questions.
Factual ignorance then establishes valid logic for all empirical questions.

With human interpretation and intelligence ignorance in mind, we can construct possibilities based on two conditions, the empirical status of the question and the user's knowledge of the answer.

1. The question is empirical, and the user knows the answer.
   • The response "I don't know" can be viewed with Human Interpretation as an example of sarcasm, thus the statement is viewed as legitimate and cannot be disproved.
2. The question is empirical, and the user does not know the answer.
   • The response "I don't know" is legitimate due to Factual Ignorance, thus the statement is viewed as legitimate and cannot be disproved.
3. The question is non-empirical, and the user knows the answer.
   • The response "I don't know" can be viewed with Human Interpretation as an example of sarcasm or rhetoric, thus the statement is viewed as legitimate and cannot be disproved.
4. The question is non-empirical, and the user does not know the answer.
   • The response "I don't know" is legitimate due to Factual Ignorance, thus the statement is viewed as legitimate and cannot be disproved.

It is demonstrated that all of the possible questions are equally valid under the stated conditions as demonstrated by the example given.

Thus, the statement itself cannot be disproved.

Conclusion

No one is winning any gold rank because the challenge statement is impossible to satisfy, as demonstrated by both proofs above. If there is an answer, it will not adhere to the rules or logic that it had established in its own challenge statement and example, thus it would be invalid.

@Aravenn/ Twuaty: I did not answer your challenge. Instead, I just rekt it.

Spoiler: MFW

Source
- Years of rhetoric study.
- 1 semester of Discrete Mathematics in college in the Fall of 2014. I was the top of my class.

Legend

 

[Trilexium]

Did you post this thread?

Before you answer "I don't know"- Anyone here, including you and myself, have proof that you DID post this thread. Also, if you do reply to this message with "I don't know", that along with evidence that you were the original poster (OP) of this thread from numerous people's perspectives, will therefore prove that, yes, you did. While you may not be conscious of it (although given the time between this reply and the original thread being posted, which is give or take a week, I highly doubt you're not conscious of this) you did post it.

(also, for clarification- we're referring to the ACCOUNT that made this thread, not the person who happened to use that account at the time.)

howzat

 

[Nick]

I can't answer this because you're not asking for an answer. You're asking for a question. In fact, you're asking for a question that disproves something that is always true. That is what makes the statement logically invalid, and thus impossible to "answer".

Logical proof to be found below. If you don't like logical arguments, mathematical proofs, or predicate logic, this is your warning!

First, let's disassemble the conditions of the challenge.

• The format of the challenge asks for a statement in Question-Answer form.
• The Answer of, "I don't know" is given.
• The user is asked to provide a Question which, when applied to the Answer, makes the statement invalid.

Further information can be found from the example given.

• The statement is subject to human interpretation.
• The statement is accepting of factual ignorance.

(I would also like to point out that the example is not, "logical", but rather interpretive. The logic is flawed, as will be explained below).

From here, I can argue that the statement is logically invalid in two ways: the flaw in the Answer statement, or the flaw in the Example.

Answer Statement Argument

Suppose you have a statement in the form of a question and an answer.
Logically valid questions prompt the user with a condition that must be definitively and provably met. Examples include, "What color is the sky?" and "what does 1+1=?". Without a question, there is no answer; an answer without a question is merely a phrase.
Logically valid answers prompt the user with only two sorts of statements: a statement that is definitively and provably correct ("The sky is currently blue" or "1+1=2"), or a statement that is definitively and provably incorrect ("The sky is soybeans" or "1+1=9001"). However, if a definitive answer cannot be given, whether it is definitively and provably correct or definitively and provably incorrect, then the answer can be ignored or avoided. A statement of ignorance is one such way that an answer can be ignored or avoided in lieu of a definitive and provable answer; "I don't know" is an example of a statement of ignorance.

This brings us to the challenge statement. The form of the statement must be one of a Question followed by an Answer. The statement requires that the Question must set forth conditions that must be definitively and provable incorrect by the Answer posed.
However, the phrase, "I don't know" is a statement of ignorance and an avoidance phrase which offers no opportunity for an answer that is definitive and provable. Either no question exists that satisfies the conditions stated (thus the statement "I don't know" is a phrase, not an Answer demanding of a question), or your statement of "I don't know" is unsatisfactory as an Answer, thus the challenge statement was flawed and impossible to complete logically.

Quad Era Demenstrandum (QED), the statement itself is logically invalid.

Example Argument

In the example given, conditions are made whereupon the statement is shown to be available to human interpretation and allowing of intelligence ignorance. Recall that our goal was to find a question that would invalidate the answer of, "I don't know".

Human interpretation allows for a limitless variety of question and answer phrases to be accepted, regardless of how true they may actually be. In the example, it is logically and demonstrably evident that the second speaker is alive, thus their ability to answer; it is assumed that the second speaker is aware of their alive state, lest they be unable to manipulate themselves to speak. However, human interpretation allows for a wide variety of answers to be accepted, whether they are logically or demonstrably true or not. Had the second person replied with, "No" in spite of their clear mortal status, human interpretation may have understood this to be sarcasm, and thus it would have been an acceptable answer. The phrase, "I don't know" also falls under this category, since the first person should be aware of the second person's awareness of their own mortal status based on their ability to give a response at all.
So whether the response is logical and demonstrable or not, human interpretation allows for all non-empirical questions to be acceptable, and thus impossible to disprove.

This leads us to the condition of factual ignorance, the literal state of not knowing the answer. Humans may be one of the most intelligent sentient beings that we are aware of, but we are far from omniscient; the fact that I have to add the qualifier, "that we are aware of" shows that humans do not know everything. Because a single question may only have a few valid answers means that there are an infinite amount of incorrect answers, it is understandable if humans do not posses answers to empirical answers. "I don't know" is a valid answer to an infinite amount of questions.
Factual ignorance then establishes valid logic for all empirical questions.

With human interpretation and intelligence ignorance in mind, we can construct possibilities based on two conditions, the empirical status of the question and the user's knowledge of the answer.

1. The question is empirical, and the user knows the answer.
   • The response "I don't know" can be viewed with Human Interpretation as an example of sarcasm, thus the statement is viewed as legitimate and cannot be disproved.
2. The question is empirical, and the user does not know the answer.
   • The response "I don't know" is legitimate due to Factual Ignorance, thus the statement is viewed as legitimate and cannot be disproved.
3. The question is non-empirical, and the user knows the answer.
   • The response "I don't know" can be viewed with Human Interpretation as an example of sarcasm or rhetoric, thus the statement is viewed as legitimate and cannot be disproved.
4. The question is non-empirical, and the user does not know the answer.
   • The response "I don't know" is legitimate due to Factual Ignorance, thus the statement is viewed as legitimate and cannot be disproved.

It is demonstrated that all of the possible questions are equally valid under the stated conditions as demonstrated by the example given.

Thus, the statement itself cannot be disproved.

Conclusion

No one is winning any gold rank because the challenge statement is impossible to satisfy, as demonstrated by both proofs above. If there is an answer, it will not adhere to the rules or logic that it had established in its own challenge statement and example, thus it would be invalid.

@Aravenn/ Twuaty: I did not answer your challenge. Instead, I just rekt it.

Spoiler: MFW

Source
- Years of rhetoric study.
- 1 semester of Discrete Mathematics in college in the Fall of 2014. I was the top of my class.

Please include your citations.