root wrote: >> FLOYD is specifically limited to logical interpretation, not legal >> interpretation. In particular, the paradox that led to my win in >> December 2006 depended on two equally-plausible legal interpretations, >> of which one was eventually discarded for entirely practical reasons >> (we needed to resolve the paradox somehow). > > I'm not clear on what you intend the distinction to be.
Logical: "This statement is true." On the basis of logic alone, either TRUE or FALSE is self-consistent. Legal: "Goethe was a player at <appropriate time c. December 2006>". According to one legal interpretation, TRUE is consistent and FALSE is not; according to another, FALSE is consistent and TRUE is not.
