On 9/5/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Taral wrote:
> >Veracity: UNDECIDABLE
>
> Angling for a paradox win?
You spoil all my fun. :-D No, I have no idea what you're talking about.
> This argument suggests TRUE to me, not UNDECIDABLE. But I think you have
> a poor interpretation of the statement. The more sensible interpretation
> is that the legality of the part message is to be determined in the
> context of the whole. Hence FALSE: a part message that quotes another
> message might, depending on the rest of the message, result in a rule
> violation. Indeed, a quotation might be the most significant part of
> the message in constructing a rule violation.
So we have two reasonable (IMO) interpretations of the statement that
result in opposite conclusions. Would this not be sufficient grounds
for a conclusion of UNDECIDABLE?
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
