Paraconsistent logicians may eschew non-contradiction. But ordinarily, discussion of the liar paradox is not aimed at rejecting non-contradiction. Ah,...
I don't know of any such requirement. I don't know what 'proponent of the liar's paradox' means, but usually discussants of the liar paradox quite und...
I don't whole hog buy into your general view about language, but for the sake of argument, suppose these matters are observer dependent. May not anoth...
Question: How does reductio work? Answer: There are two related inference rules: (1) If P, along with possibly other lines, shows a formula Q and a fo...
How predictable of Leontiskos! His hypocrisy is remarkable. Arguably he has posted more than anyone in this thread. A significantly greater number of ...
Does he need to? If I say "I am speaking", I don't need to say what I'm speaking about. I take that to mean that no one shaves the barber. The premise...
What is the definition of 'is a liar' here?: every statement is a lie? some statements are lies? many statements are lies? more than half the statemen...
It's about the sentence. First, there doesn't have to be a speaker. We can consider the sentence in and of itself. Second, I do know which sentence is...
When someone says a falsehood negligently, especially with the intent to discredit another, that too is a lie. And when someone says a falsehood that ...
Choose in what sense? Do you mean whether we should claim A or claim ~A? I wouldn't claim either. The premises are inconsistent, a fortiori the argume...
By showing a derivation: 1. P -> (Q & ~Q) {1} 2. P {2} 3. Q & ~Q {1,2} 4. ~P {1} RAA is a rule. If it is a primitive rule, then there's no call to pro...
I haven't "chosen" it except that it is: a theorem of sentential logic a tautology a symbolization, in one formula form, of certain common reasoning R...
I didn't say that. Leontiskos says he hardly reads my posts, but not so hardly to stop him from putting words in my mouth. Leontiskos is a strawmaner ...
That is a confusion of someone who doesn't know jack about the subject. The formulas of the object language are written in the object language and ref...
I've chosen to correctly report that that is a truth table tautology and a theorem of ordinary symbolic logic. Will Leontiskos's tribunal find me guil...
There's been discussion about modus tollens and RAA vis-a-vis each other. Contraposition is a one formula version of the rule RAA. With a natural dedu...
@"Leontiskos" keeps blindly flailing over the fact that RAA rejects one premise but not the others. That objection is based on not understanding RAA, ...
Again, Leontiskos doesn't know jack about this subject. When we say "It is not the case that P->Q implies ~P" it is understood that that means "It is ...
One may instruct as to what does and does not obtain in classical logic without claiming that classical logic is the only credible logic. If the subje...
We don't infer that. Suppose A is "P & ~P", then A itself is a contradiction. If ~(A -> (B & ~B)) is true then A is true. But if A is a contradiction,...
Oh no! Leontiskos has "inundated" the thread! More posts and words from him than any other poster! I better scold him for that right away! No, actuall...
The crank writes, "If the so-called mathematical objects are fictions then they are not really objects, but fictions." 'Sam Spade is a detective'. 'Th...
I think we can work with any of these: "I always lie" "I am lying now" "I am lying" "This statement by me is a lie" "This statement is a lie" "This is...
You are too much! Here's what I wrote: (1) Note that I did not put those in quotes, unlike when you quoted yourself - "you are under the spell of mate...
Call this person 'L'. L says "I am lying". Now it could be the case that L lies always, or it could be the case that L lies only sometimes. But the pu...
I didn't read the whole speech but Hawking said this about incompleteness: "Godel's theorem is proved using statements that refer to themselves. Such ...
That's not "e.g." since it is not what you said - it is clearly weaker. And, if I recall, you didn't merely say that you "think" I have that position....
Of course, one needs to leave out a lot of details in a talk like that or in a post. But again, as you keep skipping: (1 Your post didn't just leave o...
The one in connection with the incident that you posted about in this thread earlier today, when you said that I conflate a mere falsehood with a lie!...
Indeed, a reply to your argument should not have overlooked your qualification 'in their right mind', so when you noted that, I immediately recognized...
I responded to: However, I grant that would be qualified by your earlier "in their right mind". My initial reply is that whether in right mind or not,...
You have replied to my recent post. But, as I said, I replied to your earlier post that you again linked to, thus you brought this full circle. Of cou...
Getting back to the subject: Consider "Phil is a fool". or Consider the sentence "Phil is a fool". I did not assert the sentence "Phil is a fool". The...
That is a strawman. If you understood what I'm saying, then you've chosen to misrepresent it. I did not say that the writers are correct. Indeed, ther...
What are you, The Philosophy Forum interrogation officer? It is incumbent upon me to snap to right now for you with a reply to your position that the ...
No, it is not. My point went over your head. I didn't argue that the writers are right. Indeed, there are conflicting views about the liar sentence. I...
You persist to talk about me. So it is quite proper that I defend against your falsehoods about me and your inane pettiness about me. And I've said a ...
Again, you are prosecuting the fact that I don't presume to have a full explanation of, and resolute position on, the liar paradox. You even skipped m...
Wow, again, so much speciousness in just a few words. (1) You skipped my point that posters are not required to take a position on any matter whatsoev...
Those are not unfounded. It is true that knowing the way many writers in logic have not found the subject silly helps to understand why it is of inter...
Oh, for Pete's sake! So you are not responding about the example sentences I gave regarding the subject of implied speakers. Instead, you're on about ...
It is eminently your prerogative to engage with whatever you like. But you did engage my points about the other poster. And you are now suggesting a w...
(1) Whatever your definitions of 'material property' and 'formal property', the question was: (2) The comparison with "colorless green ideas" is not a...
Talking about implied speakers, I do take it that there is a speaker behind "You continue your habit " and that speaker chooses the words intentionall...
Again, the true sentences are not provable in certain systems, but provable in others. We cannot prove the Godel sentence in, say, PA, but we can prov...
Comments