[FOM] On >>this sentence cannot be proven true<<

[laureano luna]

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 10:26:52  Harley Slater wrote:
   
  >It can be proven that it does not express a single proposition, but 
>that allows it might express more than one.  Tarski's T-scheme 
>presumes that the sentences it applies to are not ambiguous - or 
>indexical, for instance.  So it should explicitly involve this 
>condition, and read, with 'Sx*p' as 'x says that p', and 'r' ranging 
>over referential phrases to propositions:
>If  (r)(Sar iff r=*p) then Tx iff p.
>I have several papers in central places explaining this further 
>(details available on request);
   
  I cannot come to see how a sentence could express more than one proposition; so, I'm highly interested in further details.
   
  Thanks,
   
  Laureano Luna Cabañero

 		
---------------------------------

LLama Gratis a cualquier PC del Mundo.
Llamadas a fijos y móviles desde 1 céntimo por minuto.
http://es.voice.yahoo.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/fom/attachments/20060726/e1f71cd0/attachment.html