On 2008-04-11, in sci.logic, Marshall wrote:

I honestly have no idea how to have a productive conversation
with you.

That's a pity, then -- though I seem to recall we have had some
moderately successful conversation on purely technical matters in the
past. I'm not being intentionally difficult and even when my questions
are a tad whimsically worded, they are usually intended in all
seriousness. On this occasion I genuinely am at a loss as to what to
make of your assertion that you think of ordinary statements involving
'truth' in terms of computational models, that is, it is literally
completely obscure to me what it would mean for anyone to think of
ordinary statements and questions such as

I hear you've been pestered in the news by an obnoxious Finnish
pedant. Is that true?

It's true I've been a bit churlish lately.

At first I thought he was mistaken, but on further reflection what
he said was perfectly true.

in any way that involves computational models.

I honestly have no idea how to have a productive conversation
with you.

On Apr 11, 12:15 am, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...@xortec.fi
wrote:
On 2008-04-05, in sci.logic, Marshall wrote:

Yes. Perhaps I have been around computers too long,
and it has narrowed my viewpoint unnecessarily. Knowing
this, and possibly being in possession of an enlightening
alternative, you are now in the position of being able to
widen my horizons.

I'm not sure what to make of your assertion that you think of ordinary
uses of 'truth' in terms of computational models and what not. Let's
consider an example. Suppose a friend of yours comes by and asks

I hear you've been pestered in the news by an obnoxious Finnish
pedant. Is that true?

Just how do computational models and such things enter into your
understanding of this question, or into your reaction or answer to it?

I honestly have no idea how to have a productive conversation
with you. I would like to. I've certainly been able to have many
productive usenet conversations with many other people before,
even when they have been very far above me in some particular
technical field, or very far below me. But I'm out of ideas.

In fact, none of my usual conversational techniques seem
to work worth a damn here. It's quite frustrating, and I feel
very glum about it.

Marshall

When we call a statement true or false, we are saying that we have
compared that statement to a given fact or principle and either found
corraboration or contradiction.

 For example, if we say "All apples
are cubes that glow in the dark," we can only judge that statement as
being true or false by comparing the statement to what we know about
apples.

In the Liar's Paradox, we say "This very statement is false."

The alleged paradox is that if the statement is true, then it is false as
it claims, but if it is false as it claims, then it has stated the
truth and cannot be false, ad infinitum.  Properly understood,
however, there is no paradox.

To judge the truth or falsity of "This very statement is false," we
must compare the statement not only to itself as explicitly required,
but also to what we know about finding the falsity of any general
statement.  This is implied by the use of the term "false," much like
the term "apple" would require us to compare a statement to what we
know about apples.  With the Liar's Paradox, the very fact of the
supposed paradox proves that the statement cannot be definitively
proven false.  And as such, the statement is ultimately true because
it admits that it falsely asserts that it is provably false.

Similarly, in the Truth Teller, we say "This very statement is true."
Although there is no alleged paradox, the statement's self-reference
to its own veracity is not sufficient evidence for its truth. The
informal fallacy called petitio principii, or begging the question,
occurs where a questioned fact is called in as proof of that fact, and
such proofs are always illegitimate.  However, we can go further here
and say that the statement is definately false because it falsely
claimed that it was provably true.

Very Respectfully,
Ray Donald Pratt

On Apr 2, 10:58 pm, raydpratt <raydpr...@gmail.com> wrote:

In the Liar's Paradox, we say "This very statement is false."

No we don't. We say "This is false." Very is an adverb so we don't
say very any noun e.g. statement. Rather we say very any adjective
e.g. "This is very false."

On Apr 2, 10:58 pm, raydpratt <raydpr...@gmail.com> wrote:

In the Liar's Paradox, we say "This very statement is false."

No we don't. We say "This is false." Very is an adverb so we don't
say very any noun e.g. statement. Rather we say very any adjective
e.g. "This is very false."