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 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