- From: Miles Sabin <msabin@interx.com>
- Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 10:59:14 +0100
- To: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
Seth Russell wrote, > How about ? > > {{ this a n3:falsehood } a n3:NonSense } Nice try, but no cigar. Declaring paradoxical propositions nonsensical or meaningless or neither true nor false, has a very long history. Unfortunately it doesn't work, because we can easily construct new variants of the liar, eg., This sentence is false or meaningless * If it's true it's either false or meaningless. * If it's false it's true. * If it's meaningless it's true (in which case it's not meaningless) More generally, for any proposed resolution which attributes semantic property P to the liar sentence, we can construct a strengthened liar, This sentence is false or P which will be paradoxical. The only "solution" I'm aware of which doesn't have this problem is the paraconsistent logic approach ... use a logic weak enough that it supports local contradictions without being reduced to triviality (ie. you can't infer an arbitrary Q from P&!P) ... but that has its own problems. Cheers, Miles
Received on Wednesday, 1 May 2002 05:59:52 UTC