- From: Richard H. McCullough <rhm@cdepot.net>
- Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 06:00:17 -0800
- To: "Miles Sabin" <miles@milessabin.com>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <001901c29166$52f8e450$bd7ba8c0@rhm8200>
Liar "paradoxes" are solved by considering the context of the statement.
Keith Devlin has a good discussion in his book "Logic and Information".
============
Dick McCullough
knowledge := man do identify od existent done
knowledge haspart list of proposition
----- Original Message -----
From: Miles Sabin
To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 5:35 AM
Subject: Re: Contexts? (again)
Sandro Hawke wrote,
> My current suggested truth predicate is WellFormedAndTrue, where
> being well-formed includes being able to be re-written in a
> truth-preserving manner to a form without negated self-references;
> this is (as far as I can tell) what KIF3 had, before they took it out
> as being unnecessary for the intended apps.
Doesn't this just give us another variant of the liar?
This statement is not WellFormedAndTrue
If it's false then it's both true and well-formed. If it's true then
it's either false or not well-formed. The only fixed point is "true but
not well-formed", and now you have to explain what _that_ means ...
seems a little fishy: true, but not rewritable in a truth preserving
way to a form without negated self-references?
Cheers,
Miles
Received on Thursday, 21 November 2002 09:00:18 UTC