Re: THE THREE "LAWS OF THOUGHT"

From: |-|erc (spam_at_fodder.abc)
Date: 10/04/04 

Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 23:43:49 GMT

"Barb Knox" <see@sig.below> wrote in
> In article <2Mb8d.14110$5O5.3436@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> "_|erc" <spam@fodder.abc> wrote:
>
> >"block" <block@nowhere.com> wrote in >
> >> "Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in >
> >> > [1] - The principle of identity asserts that if any statement is true,
> >> then it is
> >> > true.
> >>
> >> Is there such thing as a true statement? Isn't the closest thing
> >> "probable"? (maybe, possible, likely, worth a thought, hold on a minute
> >> I'll get back to you)...................... etc
> >>
> >
> >the class of statements that have an answer as either True or False are called
> >propositions.
> >propositions are common, and some are contradictory when the value is False.
> >
> >statements that are true simply by the act of making them are always true in
> >all domains.
> >"I am telling you something." is always true.
>
> Not necessarily -- I might not be listening. "I am attempting to tell you
> something" would be better.

he could be talking to himself!
"You're fired!" is another, there's a whole class of statements where the logic parser
could get the truth value for *free*, like a core of godel statments, they are common enough,
anything where the act of speech performs the verb, firing, ordering, praising, many many
subtypes of verbs that are acts of speech, crucial for natural language interpretation.

"if you call people stupid you are stupid" ... this statement is a call, the verb is self referencing here.
hence without any outside knowledge we can deduce the speaker is stupid (pun expected)

>
> >"I am a liar" is always true.
>
> Not even close. You HAVE heard of the Liar Paradox, I assume.

from Immortalist's post, you seem to define Liar wrongly as always lying. A liar is
someone who atleast once lied. The statement cannot be false.

>
> >"this statement has no proof that it is true" is always true.
>
> Not necessarily -- it's true only if the system of proof being used is
> consistent.

the antithesis of which is non logical.

Herc
I tend to generalise

Relevant Pages

  • Re: "Have" as perfective auxilliary in various languages
    ... For an older perfect or resultive to become an ordinary past is of ... verb "to have". ... The reason I am asking is that there is a common and on the ... "have" one is said to marked for present stative resultivity, ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Atguard?
    ... reliable depth would take an inordinate amount of time. ... No, you're just stupid. ... We're talking about common ad-ware supported software. ... Layered security doesn't provide defence-in-depth, since breaking one layer is sufficient to break the entire system. ...
    (comp.security.firewalls)
  • Re: Riggers Diary
    ... If you know of a 17th edition compliant CU which takes DP MCBs I'd ... I was merely trying to correct your misconception that DP MCBs ... are in any way common. ... them a liar and demanding evidence too. ...
    (uk.tech.digital-tv)
  • Re: Obfuscated Ambiguities.
    ... > dictionary definitions. ... Dork. ... rely on the concept of time, but it's utterly ludicrous to rely on a common dictionary. ... Are you really that stupid? ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: OT: Just Peppered
    ... nylon rob wrote: ... label, most often label me liberal - but I believe that is because I ... I have almost no patience for those who make stupid mistakes while ... NO WAY a "common" or acceptable situation. ...
    (rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic)