root wrote: > On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 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. > > I don't recall the details of Goethe's paradox; I think I was > deregistered at the time. But in general, if something is purely a > matter of legal interpretation, then neither UNDECIDABLE nor FLOYD > would be appropriate. It's the judge's job in such a case to pick a > legal interpretation and judge TRUE or FALSE based upon it. That's > the whole purpose of the judicial system to begin with.
Agreed; I didn't mean Goethe's paradox was UNDECIDABLE (the "however" clause of UNDECIDABLE ensures this), I just meant it was not-FLOYD. "This sentence is false" would be the canonical UNDECIDABLE. Gnarly type paradoxes should also be UNDECIDABLE, I think.
