On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 8:24 PM, Sean Hunt <scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 8:20 PM, Tanner Swett <swe...@mail.gvsu.edu> wrote:
>> Define the word "ooF" as meaning {I call a CFJ on the statement "I
>> have already called a CFJ in this message. (Foo)".}, and define the
>> word "raB" as meaning {I call a CFJ on the statement "I have already
>> called a CFJ in this message. (Bar)".}.
>
> All three fail. The first two due to attempting to create infinite
> recursion via ISIDTID, and the third due to failing to be a sentence
> describable as true or false.Re the first two: no they're not. The definition of "Foo" mentions, but does not use, the word Foo, so there is no recursion. Re the third: if a sentence is meaningful, I think that the sentence is still perfectly clear even if an obviously-meaningless word has been placed after it, especially if you're aware that the purpose of those words is to distinguish between CFJs that would otherwise be identical. If the third CFJ is judged MALFORMED, I'm just going to call the CFJs again with a different way of distinguishing them. —Machiavelli
