Re: Fitch's paradox and OWA
From: Marshall <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 10:10:12 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <36d8391f-585e-41b0-9fe2-39ae1bd114e1_at_k23g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
> My point still stands: if it's _impossible_ (as opposed to just being difficult)
> to assign truth values to a formula then the formula is neither true nor false,
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 10:10:12 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <36d8391f-585e-41b0-9fe2-39ae1bd114e1_at_k23g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
On Dec 31, 12:18 am, Nam Nguyen <namducngu..._at_shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> My point still stands: if it's _impossible_ (as opposed to just being difficult)
> to assign truth values to a formula then the formula is neither true nor false,
> which means that collectively the naturals isn't a _complete_ model of Q or its
> extensions.
Your conclusion is also still wrong, unsurprisingly.
Marshall Received on Thu Dec 31 2009 - 19:10:12 CET