To evaluate it as "self-contradictory" first I have to evaluate a truth-value.
Conceptual Truth can be understood as math
Re: Truth can be understood as math
-
- Posts: 1514
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm
Re: Truth can be understood as math
Re: Truth can be understood as math
Firstly, that's syntactically incomplete in a Type-theoretic universe.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2019 3:10 pm∃x (x ↔ ¬x)
What's x's Type?
Does it support negation?
What does it mean to negate things of type x ?
Secondly. Here is a Universe I've constructed in which ∃ Type:x (x ↔ ¬x)
https://repl.it/repls/SympatheticLovelyCondition
-
- Posts: 1514
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm
Re: Truth can be understood as math
If you want to be really nutty we can say that: ∃ Type:x (x ↔ ¬x)Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2019 4:12 pmFirstly, that's syntactically incomplete in a Type-theoretic universe.
What's x's Type?
Does it support negation?
What does it mean to negate things of type x ?
Secondly. Here is a Universe I've constructed in which ∃ Type:x (x ↔ ¬x)
https://repl.it/repls/SympatheticLovelyCondition
means I am going to go buy some fresh fruit from Aldi's, thus it is true.
If we tone back the nuttiness so that this: ∃x (x ↔ ¬x)
has its conventional meaning, then we can know it is false.
Re: Truth can be understood as math
Again. What is this "convention" thing you speak of?PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2019 9:41 pm If we tone back the nuttiness so that this: ∃x (x ↔ ¬x)
has its conventional meaning, then we can know it is false.
Clearly you are interpreting the formalism the way it suits you to interpret it.
All swans are white, but this one is black.