🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan12.083955.19685@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> pratt@Sunburn.
Stanford.EDU (Vaughan R. Pratt) writes:

   >So if you
   >truthfully 'fess right up with "I broke the vase" then it cannot be
   >that you did not break the vase.  But if you say "I didn't not break
   >the vase" then while this tips us off to some degree of culpability on
   >your part it does not permit us to infer intuitionistically that you
   >actually broke the vase.

  In your terminology then, a confession on your part in the form
"surely I broke the vase" must not be taken to mean that you did break
the vase, although an indignant denial in the form "surely I did not
break the vase" or "I did not surely break the vase" implies that you
did not break the vase. If you say "surely, if I broke the vase I must
have smashed the window" and later admit that you broke the vase, we
must be careful not to claim that you stand convicted on your own
evidence of having smashed the window, but only of having surely
smashed the window. I think this whole thing is a very shrewd move on
your part in that it practically guarantees that whatever misdemeanors
you may commit in the future, you will be able to confuse your
interrogators to the point where they prefer to drop all charges.
Presuming, of course, that your lawyer can convince the court that
this person, being an Intuitionist, must be interrogated in his own
language.