🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <28426@linus.UUCP> bwk@mbunix (Kort) writes:

>Concerning Richard Harter's reducible/irreducible sentences,
>don't we fall into the vortex with stuff like:

>	1. The following sentence is reducible.
>	2. The preceding sentence is irreducible.

	An interesting question.  The direct answer, if we consider
these two sentences in isolation, is no.  Since we cannot, in fact,
eliminate the referents, the two sentences in question are jointly
irreducible.  But, don't stop there:

	1. Sentence 2 is reducible.
	2. Sentence 1 is irreducible.
	3. Sentence 2 is reducible.

As before, sentences 1 and 2 are irreducible.  (Being irreducible,
they have no truth value, and therefore no paradox arises.)  But what
is the status of sentence 3.  Is it false, or is it irreducible?  Is
it live or is it memorex?

In spite of the fact that sentences 1 and 3 assert exactly the same thing,
sentence 3 is false -- it makes a mechanically verifable statement, and
there are no referents leading back to sentence 3.

This may be a somewhat discomforting conclusion, for two statements that
say exactly the same thing to have different status's.  [Of course, in
the real world, this situation arises all the time -- statements by a
person with a vested interest are given less weight than those of a 
person who is disinterested.]

If you want something to chew on, consider the following:

"All sentences are either reducible or irreducible."
-- 

In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.
	Richard Harter, SMDS  Inc.