Re: Liar's Paradox
- From: stevendaryl3016@xxxxxxxxx (Daryl McCullough)
- Date: 3 Apr 2008 12:16:46 -0700
In article <ccf1f7a9-3cd1-4212-9a36-b2793ffb6613@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Marshall says...
On Apr 3, 9:43 am, stevendaryl3...@xxxxxxxxx (Daryl McCullough) wrote:
Marshall says...
I may just be overly pragmatic in my thinking, but I really
don't see the value to the logician of riddles.
Natural language has ambiguous, nondeterministic,
context-sensitive semantics by design and intent.
The Liar Paradox doesn't have anything specifically to do with
natural language.
Do you see your reply as having some relevance to what
I wrote?
Yes. You said: "Natural language has ambiguous, nondeterministic,
context-sensitive semantics by design and intent". I responded
by saying that that has nothing to do with the Liar Paradox
(the subject of this thread). Maybe you didn't intend for your
statement to have any relevance to this thread?
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Liar's Paradox
- From: Marshall
- Re: Liar's Paradox
- References:
- Liar's Paradox
- From: raydpratt
- Re: Liar's Paradox
- From: Marshall
- Liar's Paradox
- Prev by Date: Re: Sequences of digits
- Next by Date: Re: Liar's Paradox
- Previous by thread: Re: Liar's Paradox
- Next by thread: Re: Liar's Paradox
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|