Re: The Liar Paradox is merely an ill-formed statement
From: Peter Olcott (olcott_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 06/20/04
- Next message: George Greene: "Re: Alan Turing's Halting Problem is incorrectly formed"
- Previous message: George Dance: "<ping Jim Burns> Sorry, my mistake"
- Maybe in reply to: George Greene: "Re: The Liar Paradox is merely an ill-formed statement"
- Next in thread: George Greene: "counting cycles"
- Reply: George Greene: "counting cycles"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 18:56:13 GMT
> B-->B has four words
>
> has the exact same structural problem and yet
> its meaning is perfectly clear and non-controversial.
> Having this alleged "infinitely recursive structure"
> IS NOT a bar to being meaningful in natural language.
> More to the point, there is nothing infinitary about
> the structure anyhow. If you try to graph it, the graph
> is quite perfectly finite; the problem is that it never
> gets down to any leaves, as it is not a tree; it contains a
> cycle. But cycles in general are NOT infinitary and they
> are also NOT -- not NECESSARILY -- even problematic.
Except that this cycle IS infinite. Infinite cycles are produced in
directed graphs when the cycle is not based upon a conditional
test. Infinite cycles in directed graphs are analogous to
unconditional (as opposed to conditional) branch instructions.
- Next message: George Greene: "Re: Alan Turing's Halting Problem is incorrectly formed"
- Previous message: George Dance: "<ping Jim Burns> Sorry, my mistake"
- Maybe in reply to: George Greene: "Re: The Liar Paradox is merely an ill-formed statement"
- Next in thread: George Greene: "counting cycles"
- Reply: George Greene: "counting cycles"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
