View Poll Results: I voted in this poll AND this conjunction is false.

Voters
13. You may not vote on this poll
  • True

    2 15.38%
  • False

    5 38.46%
  • Other

    7 53.85%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 48
  1. #1
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Bristol
    Posts
    1,977

    What is the truth value of this sentence?

    Finally, an important poll!
    To clarify, "I" refers to you!
    Last edited by Aaron Guthrie; 14-10-2007 at 02:28 AM.

  2. #2
    CC Grandmaster Basil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Subtropical Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    11,231
    I have no idea as I don't know what elements are required to establish a true or false truth value.
    There is no cure for leftism. Its infestation of the host mostly diminishes with age except in the most rabid of specimens.

  3. #3
    CC Grandmaster road runner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    on the skin of the pale blue dot
    Posts
    12,315
    Truth statements that refer to themselves don't work, and may cause the universe to implode n stuff.

  4. #4
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,359
    In the 14th century, Buridan solved such self-referential semantic paradoxes, including one of the same form as this one, in ch. 8 of Sophismata.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  5. #5
    CC Candidate Master Intuition's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    227
    Quote Originally Posted by Boris
    Truth statements that refer to themselves don't work, and may cause the universe to implode n stuff.
    lol...very true...lucky there is an 'other' option

  6. #6
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Bristol
    Posts
    1,977
    Quote Originally Posted by Boris
    Truth statements that refer to themselves don't work, and may cause the universe to implode n stuff.
    It is true that the implication (if ECQ holds) is that the universe will implode. But it is also true that the implication is that the universe will not implode.

  7. #7
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Bristol
    Posts
    1,977
    Quote Originally Posted by Gunner Duggan
    I have no idea as I don't know what elements are required to establish a true or false truth value.
    A truth value is true if it conforms to the true truth value! (So, if "Bananas are never yellow" is false, the true truth value is false.)

  8. #8
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Bristol
    Posts
    1,977
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    In the 14th century, Buridan solved such self-referential semantic paradoxes, including one of the same form as this one, in ch. 8 of Sophismata.
    His solution certainly didn't kill the literature on this!

  9. #9
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,359
    Quote Originally Posted by Mangafranga
    His solution certainly didn't kill the literature on this!
    Is much of the literature even aware of his solution? The late Prof. George Hughes' translation from the Latin is relatively recent.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  10. #10
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Bristol
    Posts
    1,977
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Is much of the literature even aware of his solution? The late Prof. George Hughes' translation from the Latin is relatively recent.
    Ah, that is somewhat different. But still I think the main point is that there have been many proposed solutions, and to claim that one of them is the solution is very strong claim. Now I presume it is known, as the translation was published in 82, and there has certainly been a lot of work since 82, but this is just my speculation.

    The SEP article on Buridan discusses his solution (for anyone that is interested).
    Last edited by Aaron Guthrie; 14-10-2007 at 08:37 PM.

  11. #11
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,359
    Quote Originally Posted by Mangafranga
    Ah, that is somewhat different. But still I think the main point is that there have been many proposed solutions, and to claim that one of them is the solution is very strong claim. Now I presume it is known, as the translation was published in 82, and there has certainly been a lot of work since 82, but this is just my speculation.
    It is up to people to refute him, and Prof Hughes tried to but couldn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mangafranga
    The SEP article on Buridan discusses his solution (for anyone that is interested).
    Thanx. It has some application to quantum paradoxes.

    Just to show how Buridan uses different definitions sometimes, are the following arguments valid or invalid:

    • No proposition is negative, therefore some proposition is negative.
    • All propositions are affirmative, therefore no proposition is negative.
    Last edited by Bill Gletsos; 14-10-2007 at 11:41 PM. Reason: fixed quote tags
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  12. #12
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Bristol
    Posts
    1,977
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    It is up to people to refute him, and Prof Hughes tried to but couldn't.
    That it hasn't been refuted (assuming that it hasn't) is not good reason to believe it is the correct solution. Also, if there are other unrefuted solutions, it is rather doubtful that I should believe them all.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Just to show how Buridan uses different definitions sometimes, are the following arguments valid or invalid:

    • No proposition is negative, therefore some proposition is negative.
    • All propositions are affirmative, therefore no proposition is negative.
    I don't know what the words "negative" and "affirmative" mean in this argument, and I am guessing that is quite relevant. So I will neglect answering until a definition is forthcoming.

  13. #13
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Bristol
    Posts
    1,977
    Thought I should explain why I wrote the paradox sentence like I did. In the form I put it, there is a sense in which this paradox is contingent, in that it requires people to vote for the paradox to be threatened. There is a also a sense in which the paradox is personalized to each person that votes (for everyone that didn't vote, well, the sentence is just false).

  14. #14
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,359
    Quote Originally Posted by Mangafranga
    That it hasn't been refuted (assuming that it hasn't) is not good reason to believe it is the correct solution.
    His arguments for it are cogent.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mangafranga
    Also, if there are other unrefuted solutions, it is rather doubtful that I should believe them all.
    A "solution" that refuses to assign a truth value is no solution.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mangafranga
    I don't know what the words "negative" and "affirmative" mean in this argument, and I am guessing that is quite relevant. So I will neglect answering until a definition is forthcoming.
    I mean the standard definitions. An affirmative proposition affirms a predicate about a subject, while negative proposition denies, i.e. No As are B or Not all As are B. In standard syllogistic notation:

    • A proposition is a universal affirmative: All S is P
    • E proposition is a universal negative: No S is P
    • I proposition is a particular affirmative: Some S is P
    • O proposition is a particular negative: Some S is not P


    The relevant thing is not any trick with the definition, but with the self-reference involved.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  15. #15
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Bristol
    Posts
    1,977
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    His arguments for it are cogent.
    Which is fine, but others have made cogent arguments too.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    A "solution" that refuses to assign a truth value is no solution.
    I won't argue that point (not that I don't think it is arguable), but I will note that others have argued that the sentence is false (and some that it is both true and false!).

    I'll leave the argument validity till I am not tired.

    edit-Just a note on what makes a solution, I didn't argue it just because I couldn't be bothered. I would consider a solution that argued convincingly that the sentence is meaningless, or badly formed, or whatever to be a coherent solution.
    Last edited by Aaron Guthrie; 15-10-2007 at 05:10 AM.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Is the Bible truth?
    By Oepty in forum Religion and Science
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 13-12-2012, 03:16 AM
  2. The truth about Pittman and Lewis
    By pax in forum Non-Chess
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-04-2006, 02:37 PM
  3. Is the Jabberwock truth?
    By PHAT in forum Non-Chess
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 02-09-2004, 05:46 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •