Path: utzoo!utgpu!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!purdue!bu-cs!buengc!bph
From: bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Fun with the semantics of paradox
Message-ID: <2045@buengc.BU.EDU>
Date: 4 Feb 89 16:56:33 GMT
References: <1883@buengc.BU.EDU> <2996@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> <905@ubu.warwick.UUCP> <479@aipna.ed.ac.uk> <1036@hudson.acc.virginia.edu> <3715@uklirb.UUCP> <44071@linus.UUCP> <3145@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu>
Reply-To: bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton)
Followup-To: comp.ai
Organization: Boston Univ. Col. of Eng.
Lines: 21

In article <3145@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu> jwm@aplvax.UUCP (Jim Meritt) writes:
>
>This sentence is false.
>
>(IMHO, a paradox is a function of the language it is expressed in, and
>not of the universe.  YOU may not understand it, but so what?)

1.  Read R. Carnap, _The_Logical_Syntax_of_Language_, and discover that
logic is independent of the language.
        _
2.  S = S   is in symbolic-logic language, but has a depiction in every
language I know of, and is paradoxical regardless of the words or their
arrangement, so long as the syntax can be reduced to its logic, and,
extrapolating from Carnap, the language would be entirely useless if
it couldn't.

3.  No comment on what I think 'IMHO' could possibly mean to you :-)

				--Blair
				  "Everyone out of the building.
				   Walk, don't run."