Re: Why Regularity?
- From: "Jesse F. Hughes" <jesse@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 12:55:07 -0500
"Rupert" <rupertmccallum@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
There is a mathematical analysis of the liar paradox. Tarski proved
that no language can define its own truth predicate. That's how the
liar paradox is avoided in mathematics.
There's a more recent treatment of the paradox in "The Liar", by
Barwise and Etchemendy. They use coalgebraic semantics to analyze the
paradoxical statement, if I recall correctly.
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"I don't know if you noticed but I had a tremendous drop in confidence
concomittant [sic] with a dramatic grip of existential crisis."
--- James S. Harris even has better diseases than you
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Why Regularity?
- From: David Marcus
- Re: Why Regularity?
- From: Ross A. Finlayson
- Re: Why Regularity?
- References:
- Why Regularity?
- From: zuhair
- Re: Why Regularity?
- From: Rupert
- Re: Why Regularity?
- From: zuhair
- Re: Why Regularity?
- From: Rupert
- Why Regularity?
- Prev by Date: Re: An Invitation to Quantum Mathematics
- Next by Date: Re: Calculating an average vector
- Previous by thread: Re: Why Regularity?
- Next by thread: Re: Why Regularity?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading