Is this a paradox?

no, it's a conundrum

No. People say they're "always" doing things when they mean they do them frequently.

This is not a logical paradox. It is very similar to a famous paradox but there is a crucial difference.

Lets look first at the statement that I want to assert is a logical paradox: "I am telling a lie", or stated in another way, "This statement is false". If one declares that the statement "I am telling a lie" is true, it implies that I am in fact stating a falsehood, therefore it is false. However if I declare that the statement is false, it implies that I am in fact stating a truth, therefore it is true. Declaring that the statement is false or true puts me into a 'loop'; by analogy the assigning of a truth value is like a spinning coin which can never fall on to one side or another. This is a logical paradox and is in line with the third definition given in the explanation, "A [valid] assertion that is essentially self-contradictory ...". This is known as the Eubulides paradox.

The example stated is a riff on what is called the Epimenides paradox (so called for historical reasons even though it is not a logical paradox). Lets look at what happens when we assert that it is either true or false. If the statement "I am lying" is declared to be true, that would imply that I stated a falsehood and therefore it must be false. Even though the truth value 'flipped' like that, it is absolutely essential that the same 'flipping' should occur when the statement is false as well. Moreover, the 'flip' *must* occur in the true or the false case in order for it to be a (logical) paradox.

Now lets look at what happens when we declare that statement is false. That would mean (in a first order predicate logic context) that its 'opposite' or negation must be true. Lets change the wording into an equivalent statement, from "I always lie" to "Every statement I make is false". The negation of the statement "Every statement I make is false" is not "Every statement I make is true". The correct negation is "There exists at least one statement in the set of statements that I make that is true". It does not follow that declaring the statement false means that the given statement *must* be true or more importantly that this particular statement must be the 'at least one' true statement that I can make.

Despite that fact that this statement is not a paradox, it does have an interesting feature. If you like Martin Gardner's logic puzzles, then you might have seen this pop up. I am going to borrow his terms in order to make my point. Imagine an island that is populated only by Knights and Knaves. Knights always tell the truth (or can only say true statements) and Knaves always lie (or can only say false statements). On such an island, a Knight can never ever say "I always lie" because it would be false and they can't say false statements. A Knave can't say it either, because it would be true and they can't say true statements. Therefore on such an island this statement would be *impossible* to make by a native.

If you don't buy my reasoning it is probably because my explanation sucked. But if you search the web for "Liar's paradox", "Epimenides paradox" or "Eubulides paradox" you will probably find a better explanation.

If he sometimes lies, he is lying by telling you he always lies.

Wikipedia has an excellent article on the subject that is far more clear and succinct than my explanation:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epimenides_paradox

Yes, I believe it is!

Yes.

That's the right answer!

I suppose it could be, I'd be more inclined to think it was hyperbole.

I really think that paradoxes are over-rated... they're mostly semantic artifacts...

If he always lied, he wouldn't be saying it. I would guess that sometimes he lies, and sometimes he doesn't, and that when he approached you and spoke to you he lied. It's not a paradox if he sometimes lies, it's just another lie.

It's simply not true. No paradox.

No, I don't believe so. The man may *sometimes* lie. In that case, he's lying *this* time by saying "I *always* lie".

I agree with joalis that it *isn't* a paradox as he may *sometimes* lie.

I think it is. If he does always lie, then by saying he does he must be lying and therefore telling the truth however anyone who tells the truth always cannot lie and would not say "I always lie".

Isn't a hyperbole an exaggeration? If it isn't I've been using the term incorrectly.

Yeah, he ONLY lies sometimes, and at that particular moment, he was lying that he always lies.

yeah

No, I don't think so.

Extravagant exaggeration, yes. I would tend to use it in such a way that it should be obvious. A slight exaggeration, that is believable isn't really hyperbole. It should stretch the bounds of credulity.

(From the I, Mudd episode of the original Star Trek)
"What?"
"He lied."
"Everything Harry tells you is a lie."
"Listen to this carefully, Norman. I am lying."
"You say you are lying, but if everything you say is a lie, then you are telling the truth, but ...
you cannot tell the truth because everything you say is a lie. You lie -- You tell the truth -- But you cannot -- Illogical! Illogical! Please explain. Only humans can explain their behavior. Please explain.
I am not programmed to respond in that area."

Wasn't that 'Nomad'?

I, Mudd was the one with the androids who looked like one another ("Norman, coordinate!"). Nomad was the one where the floating robot device couldn't stand the thought that his creator (who was also, coincidentally, named Kirk) was human, and therefore flawed, so he had to be transported off the ship before he had a meltdown and went boom.

yes, but is it really possible to always lie in the first place.

oh, never mind, i must not been thinking right now. off course its NOT a paradox. i wasnt thinking both ways. i think someone once said, always look on both sides before crossing the street.

Well it was something illogical, I remember that part.

It's certainly not a logical paradox. It's merely an example of somebody exaggerating about how much they lie.
Although it is a statement that logically can never be true, the fact that the statement is false doesn't stop the man from being an occasional liar.

It is not a paradox. The man could not be telling the truth because he says he always lies. Hes lying right now but that doesnt mean he always lies. i hope i made this understandable...

I guess so. Because he would either have to be lying when he said he always lies because he would be telling the truth.