- 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