Re: Where is the paradox in liar?

Barb Knox wrote:
In article <e34lnq$11q2$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"H. J. Sander Bruggink" <bruggink@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

This doesn't follow. What does follow is that every formal
logic in which you can represent "This sentence is false."
must have more than 2 truth values.

As has been pointed out by others, that doesn't help. For example, let the truth values be real numbers from 0.0 (definitely false) through 1.0 (definitely true). Then what is the truth value of the following:
This sentence does not have a truth value of 1.0.

It is 1.0 iff it is not.

You're right, thanks. I was a bit sloppy.

What I meant (and I think the OP, too), is that there
must be (at least) three possibilities:

* true
* false
* neither true nor false

The third possibility is not really a "truth value",
indeed.

groente
-- Sander
.

Quantcast