On 6/23/13 16:25 , Tanner Swett wrote: > On Jun 23, 2013, at 2:29 PM, woggle wrote: >> I judge CFJ 3339 FALSE. >> >> ... >> >> It has been generally uncontroverisal to resolve conflicts in rules and >> similar documents not handled using the usual precedences as UNDECIDABLE, >> even though the judgment of UNDECIDABLE is not appropriate when true or >> false is. > > All right, let me make sure I understand this judgement. > > Under the conditions described in the statement of CFJ 3339, if a CFJ were > called on the statement "It is LEGAL to shout 'CREAMPUFF' if and only if it > is ILLEGAL to shout 'CREAMPUFF'" (call this statement LIFF!L), then FALSE > would be an inappropriate judgement, meaning that from Agora's point of > view, LIFF!L would be false, despite its presence in the rules. Although > the self-contradictory statement in the rules is considered false, there is > nonetheless considered to be a paradox here, meaning that if a CFJ were > called on the statement "It is LEGAL to shout 'CREAMPUFF'" (call this > statement L), TRUE and FALSE would be inappropriate and UNDECIDABLE would > be appropriate. > > Do you agree with the above paragraph? > > I find this judgement surprising, since I expected that if Agora considered > statement L to be undecidable, it would consider statement LIFF!L to be > true. (You're sure you didn't mean to judge CFJ 3339 TRUE?)
I do not believe the truth value of "<undecidable> iff not <undecidable>" is well-defined -- especially in the presence of the implicit Liar's Paradox issue here -- so it would be most appropriate to interpret LIFF!L as also UNDECIDABLE. - woggle
