[FOM] Axiomatic Syntax
torkel at sm.luth.se
Wed Sep 3 11:31:30 EDT 2003
>I think your
>various misgivings would become clearer if stated in terms that do
>involve the business of self-reference.
I was perhaps overly optimistic in thinking that it would be clear that
"do involve" above was a typo for "do not involve".
I've been harping on this theme in several recent postings: there is
nothing special about self-reference, as opposed to reference in general,
or about the problems of expressing "real" self-reference as opposed
to the problem of expressing "real" reference in general.
More information about the FOM