Liste des Groupes | Revenir à c theory |
On 5/22/24 11:45 PM, olcott wrote:I am correct and you simply do not understand that I am correct,On 5/22/2024 9:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Which was wasted since you didn't learn what a True Predicate is.On 5/22/24 9:36 PM, olcott wrote:>On 5/22/2024 8:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:>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)
But that isn't the traditional "Liar's Paradix", because it is not normally stated in terms of a Truth Predicate.
>
The "Liar's paradox" is a statement that asserts that it is false.
>
That is NOT what the above statement says, or even means.
>
The Strengthened Liar Paradox (also called the Strong Liar Paradox)
can begin with a Strengthened Liar Sentence such as: This sentence
is not true,
https://iep.utm.edu/liar-paradox/#SH1a
>
I spent 20,000 hours on this since 2004 and you glance at a couple
of my words and guess that I must be wrong.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.