```Date: Feb 9, 2013 8:21 PM
Author: Graham Cooper
Subject: Re: This is False. 0/0 {x | x ~e x} e {x | x ~e x} A single Principle<br> to Resolve Several Paradoxes

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 notNOT is the SET/RELATION/ATOMIC-PREDICATEit'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
```