🚀 go-pugleaf

Newberry wrote:
> Some time ago on sci.crypt I posted some notes about the relationship
> between the logic of pressupositions, occurrence-relevance logic,
> liar's paradox and G�del's sentence. I have now written an entire
> paper on the subject.
> 
> The objective of this paper is to explore the relationship between the
> logic of presupposition and occurrence relevance logic. In section 1
> we recapitulate the logic of presuppositions as proposed by P.F.
> Strawson. In section 2 we note the similarities between the logic of
> presuppositions and occurrence -relevance logic proposed by Richard
> Diaz. In section 3 we recall van Fraassen's solution of Liar's paradox
> based on the logic of presuppositions. In section 4 we ponder the
> similarities between Liar's paradox and G�del's sentence. Finally in
> section 5 we justify the view that not every sentence has to have a
> truth value.
> 
> http://xnewberry.tripod.com/Presuppositions_2007_05_19.html
> 
 >
You write in your article:
	We have concluded after a long and painful process that "This 	
	sentence is false" is neither true nor false. This seems rather
	odd. In the course of everyday life when we communicate with 	
	others we do not spend hours on each sentence looking for a
	proof by contradiction that it does not have a truth value.
	There must be a more direct method. "In order to tell whether a
	picture is true or false we must compare it with reality." [TLP
	2.223] Sentences are pictures and therefore to find if "This
	sentence is false" is true we have to compare it with reality.
	What does it say about reality? Nothing. There is nothing to
	compare it with. It is meaningless. "This sentence is false"
	does not have a truth value because it is meaningless.

Yes why spend hours with proofs? Why not
try a simple truth table:

     X      X<->~X
     0      0
     1      0

So in a blink of an eye we know everything
about "reality" and have a full "picture"....

Yawn ...

Bye