Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 5/22/24 9:36 PM, olcott wrote:The Strengthened Liar Paradox (also called the Strong Liar Paradox)On 5/22/2024 8:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:But that isn't the traditional "Liar's Paradix", because it is not normally stated in terms of a Truth Predicate.On 5/22/24 7:55 PM, olcott wrote:>*You are just not paying close enough attention again*>
>
When p defined as ~True(L, p)
True(L,p) is false
True(L,~p) is false
~True(L,~p) is true
>
x := y means x is defined to be another name for y
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_logic_symbols
Right, so since p is DEFINED to be ~True(L, p), which since True(L, p) is false, must be true, that means that you are claiming that
T(L, <a statement that has been shown to be true>) is false.
>
Thus your True predicat is just broken.
>
Let's use the more intuitive name lp so that we incorporate by
reference (instead of ignore) all of the material about the liar paradox.
>
lp := ~True(L, lp)
The "Liar's paradox" is a statement that asserts that it is false.
That is NOT what the above statement says, or even means.
YOU ARE ALREADY AHEAD OF THE LITERATURE.>Nope, shows you don't understand what the literature is saying.
You already said that you know the Liar Paradox is neither true
nor false, thus not a truth-bearer. You proved that you know
more about self-reference than all of the standard literature
*That Tarski was aware of**Mikko rejects p := ~True(L,p) as a syntax error*But he is wrong, there is no syntax error for it in the logic field that Tarski is working in,
*which rejects p defined as ~True(L, p) as a syntax error*
>
encode references, even to self, into the logical statements of the field.He didn't bother to THINK THIS ALL-THE-WAY THROUGH
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.