On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 4:57 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 6:51 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 9:55 PM, Ben Caplan >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> On Sunday 13 July 2008 10:45:42 pm ihope wrote: >>>> Either the sky is always red or, if I do not hereby initiate an >>>> inquiry case on this sentence, then the sky is always green. >>> >>> (R v (~I => G)) >>> >>> Since ~G, it follows that I (ihope127 does in fact call said CFJ). >>> Although ~R, (false v true) evaluates to true. >>> >>> TRUE. >> >> Your reasoning appears circular. You have to assume the statement to >> be true before you can determine that I follows from ~G. > > To me, it seems like he just assumed ~I => G and verified that the > statement is true and I did initiate the CFJ under that assumption.
My opinion is that the statement does not constitute "announcing that e performs [the action]" regardless of whether it has a true interpretation or not, and so it does not initiate a CFJ, and so it is false. This does not mean that I think that actual announcements of actions do not carry a truth value, however. As an aside, your statement could also be parsed as (I => (R ^ ~G)) ^ (~I => (~R ^ G)), which is false for any assignment of I. -root
