f



Formalizing the logical (self-reference) error of the Liar Paradox (v11)

For the first time in human history the entire semantic meaning of the Liar=
 Paradox is totally explained. Proceeding on the basis of key insights prov=
ided by Saul Kripke in his famous paper:  Outline of a Theory of Truth (197=
5), this paper formalizes every subtle nuance of Liar Paradox semantics usi=
ng Meaning Postulates (1952) provided by Rudolf Carnap.=20

http://LiarParadox.org/Liar_Paradox_Research_Gate.pdf
0
peteolcott
10/8/2016 7:06:00 PM
comp.theory 5139 articles. 0 followers. marty.musatov (1143) is leader. Post Follow

3 Replies
157 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 25

On Saturday, October 8, 2016 at 2:06:02 PM UTC-5, peteolcott wrote:
> For the first time in human history the entire semantic meaning of the Li=
ar Paradox is totally explained. Proceeding on the basis of key insights pr=
ovided by Saul Kripke in his famous paper:  Outline of a Theory of Truth (1=
975), this paper formalizes every subtle nuance of Liar Paradox semantics u=
sing Meaning Postulates (1952) provided by Rudolf Carnap.=20
>=20
> http://LiarParadox.org/Liar_Paradox_Research_Gate.pdf

http://liarparadox.org/Liar_Paradox_Research_Gate.pdf

http://philpapers.org/archive/OLCFST.pdf=20

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307442489_Formalizing_the_logical_=
self-reference_error_of_the_Liar_Paradox
0
peteolcott
10/8/2016 8:10:10 PM
On Saturday, October 8, 2016 at 12:06:02 PM UTC-7, peteolcott wrote:
> For the first time in human history the entire semantic meaning of the Li=
ar Paradox is totally explained. Proceeding on the basis of key insights pr=
ovided by Saul Kripke in his famous paper:  Outline of a Theory of Truth (1=
975), this paper formalizes every subtle nuance of Liar Paradox semantics u=
sing Meaning Postulates (1952) provided by Rudolf Carnap.=20
>=20
> http://LiarParadox.org/Liar_Paradox_Research_Gate.pdf

You fail again for the reason I have pointed out before.

When you assert the existence of what you call a Mathematical
Proposition you assert the existence of its semantic properties.
The Boolean.Value of the Proposition - qua property - has some
value which may or may not be the same as the truth value of
the assertion. The paradox is in determining what the truth
value is.
0
David
10/9/2016 6:33:33 PM
On Sunday, October 9, 2016 at 1:33:35 PM UTC-5, David Kleinecke wrote:
> On Saturday, October 8, 2016 at 12:06:02 PM UTC-7, peteolcott wrote:
> > For the first time in human history the entire semantic meaning of the =
Liar Paradox is totally explained. Proceeding on the basis of key insights =
provided by Saul Kripke in his famous paper:  Outline of a Theory of Truth =
(1975), this paper formalizes every subtle nuance of Liar Paradox semantics=
 using Meaning Postulates (1952) provided by Rudolf Carnap.=20
> >=20
> > http://LiarParadox.org/Liar_Paradox_Research_Gate.pdf
>=20
> You fail again for the reason I have pointed out before.
>=20
> When you assert the existence of what you call a Mathematical
> Proposition you assert the existence of its semantic properties.
> The Boolean.Value of the Proposition - qua property - has some
> value which may or may not be the same as the truth value of
> the assertion. The paradox is in determining what the truth
> value is.

Previously the truth value of a proposition was implied rather than explici=
tly specified. Now that the truth value of a proposition is shown to be a B=
oolean property of this proposition the initalization of this property can =
be explicitly shown rather than implied. Because it can be explicitly shown=
, it can be shown to be logically incorrect.=20

When we translate the Declarative-Sentence [This sentence is false] into it=
s equivalent Mathematical Proposition we must do this as a sequence of step=
s in strict prerequisite order:=20

Proposition p:
1) Define the Proposition.Assertion
Declarative Sentence: 	The Boolean value of p equals False. =20
Formalized as: 		p.Assertion.haveEqualValues(p.Boolean.Value, False)	=09

2) Test the Proposition.Assertion
Interrogative Sentence:	Does the Boolean value of p equal False?=20
Formalized as:	TestResult =3D testEquality(p.Boolean.Value, False)

3) Initialize the Proposition.Boolean.Value on the basis of prior testing=
=20
Formalized as: 		p.Boolean.Value =3D TestResult

From the above formalized steps we can see that the Liar Paradox attempts t=
o initialize its Boolean value entirely on the basis of testing this same B=
oolean value before it comes into existence.=20

Comparing an undefined (semantically empty thus non-existent) Boolean value=
 to False is like measuring the length of your car when you have no car.=20

Because the comparison shown in step (2) above fails the assignment shown i=
n step (3) never occurs, thus the Liar Paradox is unequivocally shown to be=
 nothing more than a logical error, it is not a paradox at all.=20
0
peteolcott
10/15/2016 7:24:32 PM
Reply: