Sujet : Re: Refutation of Strachey’s 1965 Proof Based on Self-Referential Conflation as a Category (Type) Error
De : Keith.S.Thompson+u (at) *nospam* gmail.com (Keith Thompson)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 22. Apr 2025, 11:23:31
Autres entêtes
Organisation : None to speak of
Message-ID : <878qnsze8s.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
References : 1 2 3 4
User-Agent : Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
Mikko <
mikko.levanto@iki.fi> writes:
On 2025-04-21 11:18:23 +0000, Mr Flibble said:
[...]
A circular dependency is like a circular argument or circular
reasoning:
not logically sound.
>
A circular argument is not like a circular argument.
Are you sure about that? 8-)}
I think you meant to write that a circular *dependency* is not like a
circular argument.
A circular argument
means either that there is an unjustified assumption and thus the argument
is fallacious or that the proof is redundant and therefore not needed.
>
Dependency is not a logical concept. Statements of dependency always involve
an extra-logical knowledge or assumption. Whether such statements are are
true or false must be determined from such extra-logical knowledge or
assumptions with valid use of logic.
-- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.comvoid Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
Re: Refutation of Strachey’s 1965 Proof Based on Self-Referential Conflation as a Category (Type) Error
Re: Refutation of Strachey’s 1965 Proof Based on Self-Referential Conflation as a Category (Type) Error
