|
|
Re: This is False. 0/0 {x | x ~e x} e {x | x ~e x} A single Principle
to Resolve Several Paradoxes
Posted:
Feb 9, 2013 8:21 PM
|
|
On Feb 5, 5:43 am, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"
<LordAndroc...@Januaryr2013.edu> wrote:
> > In this case, because primitives of logical expressions must be
> > relations and ~e is not a relation.
>
> I (1) don't make the assumption that primitives of logical expressions must
> be relations. I (2) assume you mean the relation "~e" to be the set of
> ordered pairs (x, y) such that x ~e y.
>
> Since I (3) don't take logical expressions to be sets, I (4) certainly don't
> take logical expressions to be relations. I (5) would prefer to say that a
> logical expression may sometimes determine a set. But sometimes a
> logical expression won't determine a set (e.g., the logical expression
> "x ~e x" wont' determine a set.)
>
not ( e(x x) ) <=> e(x,x) e not
NOT is the SET/RELATION/ATOMIC-PREDICATE
it's even PREFIX!
> Thus, I (6) say that "x ~e x" is a wff, but "x ~e x" cannot be used to
> define a relation that corresponds to it.
>
OK!
WFF are blind syntactic *CONSTRUCTIONS*
That they are *CONSTRUCTED* to be TRUE(wff) or NOT(wff)
does not make them predicates (ACTUALLY TRUE OR NOT)
or "In-The-Language".
Herc
--
www.BLoCKPROLOG.com
|
|
