| |
 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Logic Forum » "This statement is false" a solution |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Aleck T. |
 Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 4:40 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Now this is totally a work in progress for now (since I have not
worked out all the details), but we can grasp it generally.
The statement "This statement is false" actually has partial
congruence. The problem is we have *misunderstood* what a statement
is, and *what makes a statement*.
We must ask ourselves, what are statements made of? We'll take it
statements are made of distinct (discrete) concepts and units of
concepts, that is, concept data and concept functions. Now each
concept must have geometry (i.e. geometry of information) and distinct
boundaries to make them distinct from other concepts (distinct being
not equal).
Example: "This" is not equal to "statement" and not equal to "is" and
not equal to "false"
So each word *is a distinct object and function* it is a function
because it is necessarily connected in a chain to the next concept in
the statement *and* because it *references itself*. When we make a
statement *we perform merges* on units of concepts and their
functional boundaries (my joins and merges). "This" is *joined* with
'statement', the latter is *joined* with "is" and is "joined" with
"false".
The joining function is where I believe we are going wrong, there's is
a function that holds each individual word in statement together which
self-referentially is eithe true or false, then there is a function
for merging each distinct concept into a "whole" in a new form (the
"whole" statement), you can only see this by using goemetric shapes
and colors as place holders for words and characters. and then using
layers (two pieces of paper, or a transparency, one over top of the
other and play aroudn with the idea of *superpositional functions*
The words "This statement is" are correct and true if we take them
individually and only count the parts of the statement which is
intelligable and valid (since each word is a statement itself). So
what makes the statement incoherent is the addition of "false".
Since the statement exists, i.e. "This statement is false". the
statement has existent structure, which by definition *must be true in
a partial sense* because it both exists, and has existent structure.
So the structure of a statement *contains a partial incorrect pattern
in the statement *which exists (is true)*. To think of it anothe
way:"It is true, that the statement contains an incorrect pattern or
word, at location x.y) and that pattern is the word false. Thereby
disqualifying it from being a valid statement, because it violates the
rules of valid statement construction.
Let's rewrite "This statmenet is false" using boolean logic
This (exists and is true), statement (exists and is true), is (compare
function exists, and is true) false (it is true, that all previous
words are false).
NOW we see that the word "false" is function which points back to
every word in the statmente claiming that the whole statement is
*false*, which of course is incorrect. The word "false" is a
statement about the prior statements, themselves, but we have already
established their congruence (truth), therefore, the word false is
an invalid function to end the statement with (a contradiction)
We can prove "this statement is false" actually contains *partial
truth* and *partial falsehood in *superposition* (look it up,
specifically quantum computing wikipedia). The easy way to prove this
is to use geometry (i.e., colors and shapes), represent the whole
statement as a series of circles that are black (black meaning
congruent/true/coherent equals yes), we represent each word that is
incorrect as *white*, so the statement would look like this
(black)-(black)-(black)-(white)
Each conceptual-object-function (i.e. "this", "statement", "is") has a
*truth congruence relationship* to the next word in the statement.
So each word in the statement is *both a self-referencing statement
and a function*, it is not simply a static *object*. We can see this
because of time, a statement necessarily can only be constructed
through sequencies of time-frames (i.e. functions, moves and
positions).
Each object (word) must be *countained in a boundary function* and a
boundary function chain. Chaining and linking concepts into a
congruence circuit.
A statement (sentence) is not this simple thing, it is made of
partials (parts), like your car is made of parts. Logic has been
focusing on gross anatomy of statement instead of the individual units
that make up a statement. We can see this most vividly in our love
of spelling and sequencing characters correctly (i.e. testing each
character as if it was itself a statement in a congruence test).
Spelling, very common and basic, and yet many people make spelling
mistkes (that mistake was intentional) and instantly you know that
*the word is spelled incorrectly*. So how would you know that if the
units that make up the word were incorrect, if they were not
statements in and of themselves that were either true or false?
You wouldn't, so they must be.
Fin. If you see any errors in the above, point them out. Much
appreciated. Thanks! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jan Burse |
| Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 4:46 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
When you read:
This sentence has five words.
Is this wrong or right? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Nov 08, 2009 2:34 pm
|
|