Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cca!g-rh
From: g-rh@cca.CCA.COM (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: The Liar
Message-ID: <26594@cca.CCA.COM>
Date: 4 Apr 88 16:52:28 GMT
References: <8224@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <26505@cca.CCA.COM> <8307@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Reply-To: g-rh@CCA.CCA.COM.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Computer Corp. of America, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 28

_The Liar: An Essay in Truth and Circularity_, by Jon Barwise and
John Etchemendy, Oxford University Press, 1987.  It only costs $20;
its ISBN is 0-19-505072-X.  Buy this book.

In article <8307@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) writes:
>In article <26505@cca.CCA.COM>, g-rh@cca (Richard Harter) writes:

	... Proposing the following counterexample.

>What about

(L*)	 "This sentence is either false or irreducible."  ?
>If true, then it isn't false, and it isn't irreducible.  Nope.  If false,
>then true.  Nope.  So it's irreducible, hence true.  Whoops.

	No soap.  (L*) is irreducible.  It has no truth value.  Can I
consistently mark it as true?  No.  Can I consistently mark it as false.
No.  It is not (L*) that is a problem.  Consider the following statement

(L**)  (L*) is irreducible.

Is this a reducible statement?  If it is, is there something wrong with
the definition of reducibility that I gave?
-- 

In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.
	Richard Harter, SMDS  Inc.