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 |

10/8/2016 7:06:00 PM

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 |

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 |

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 |

10/15/2016 7:24:32 PM