[FOM] The liar and the semantics of set theory (expansion)
Rupert McCallum
rupertmccallum at yahoo.com
Sun Sep 22 22:58:48 EDT 2002
I briefly wavered on whether my definition of *truth *predicate was
satisfactory.
I said, say phi is a *truth *predicate (actually, let's call that a
weak *truth *predicate) if we have that x *satisfies phi iff x is the
Goedel code of a *true sentence.
And say phi is a strong *truth *predicate if we have that x *satisfies
phi iff x is the Goedel code of a *true sentence, and *satisfies ~phi
iff x is the Goedel code of a *false sentence.
Of course the liar paradox blocks a strong *truth *predicate even in
the absence of bivalence, so you must have meant a weak *truth
*predicate.
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
More information about the FOM
mailing list