On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 6:12 PM, Warrigal wrote:
> I CFJ on the following statement, then:
>
> If a CFJ were called on X on December 20 this year, it would be legal
> to judge FALSE on the CFJ, where X is defined as the following string,
> followed by a quotation mark, followed by the same string,
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-12-15 at 22:32 -0500, Warrigal wrote:
>> Since apparently neither FALSE nor TRUE is appropriate, UNDECIDABLE is
>> appropriate.
>>
>> The only reasonable way I can see to resolve this paradox is by
>> repealing Rule 2110.
> I believe it's a nic
On Mon, 2008-12-15 at 22:32 -0500, Warrigal wrote:
> I CFJ on the following statement:
>
> If a CFJ were called on X, it would be legal to judge FALSE on the
> CFJ, where X is defined as the following string, followed by a
> quotation mark, followed by the same string, followed by a quotation
> ma
3 matches
Mail list logo
