Any system that does not give this proposition the value of ‘true’ is wrong, for all definitions of true and wrong that are useful, coherent, or reasonable.
Hmm. I was going to say “assign it the value of true, and it returns true. Assign it the value of false, and it returns a contradiction”, but on reflection that’s not the case. If you assign it the value of false, then the claim becomes ¬(A is true), so it returns false.
So I was wrong—the proposition is a null proposition, it simply returns the truth value you assign to it. I don’t know if ambiguous is the best way to describe it, but ‘true’ certainly isn’t.
Tordmor messed up and wrote “This proposition is true” when he probably would have wanted to have referred to “This proposition is false”.
Shokwave correctly notes that “This proposition is true” isn’t ambiguous at all, it essentially returns the value True.
Jonii also correctly observes that the person speaking the claim “This proposition is true” could be lying or mistaken (to the extent that the statement has bearing on facts external to the phrase). Apparent disagreement with Shokwave is likely to be due to ambiguity in the casual English representations of logical dereferencing.
How did you determine that the sentence “This proposition is true” returns the value True?
Again, English is messy. Shokwave was noting (and I was acknowledging) that there is the claim of truth.
To me it doesn’t seem to return any value. Tordmor correctly notes its truth-state is uncertain.
No he doesn’t. He claims it is ambiguous—an entirely different thing. It is an unambiguous claim to be true. Such a claim can itself be false but the meaning is entirely clear. It says it’s true!
Contrast with “This statement is false”.
These distinctions become relevant when Omega throws you box puzzles like this.
Any system that does not give this proposition the value of ‘true’ is wrong, for all definitions of true and wrong that are useful, coherent, or reasonable.
Mind explaining why? I don’t see any reason it’s any more true than it is false.
Hmm. I was going to say “assign it the value of true, and it returns true. Assign it the value of false, and it returns a contradiction”, but on reflection that’s not the case. If you assign it the value of false, then the claim becomes ¬(A is true), so it returns false.
So I was wrong—the proposition is a null proposition, it simply returns the truth value you assign to it. I don’t know if ambiguous is the best way to describe it, but ‘true’ certainly isn’t.
edit: perhaps cata’s ‘trivial’ is a good word for it.
Interesting. If I infer correctly...
Tordmor messed up and wrote “This proposition is true” when he probably would have wanted to have referred to “This proposition is false”.
Shokwave correctly notes that “This proposition is true” isn’t ambiguous at all, it essentially returns the value True.
Jonii also correctly observes that the person speaking the claim “This proposition is true” could be lying or mistaken (to the extent that the statement has bearing on facts external to the phrase). Apparent disagreement with Shokwave is likely to be due to ambiguity in the casual English representations of logical dereferencing.
How did you determine that the sentence “This proposition is true” returns the value True?
To me it doesn’t seem to return any value. Tordmor correctly notes its truth-state is uncertain.
Again, English is messy. Shokwave was noting (and I was acknowledging) that there is the claim of truth.
No he doesn’t. He claims it is ambiguous—an entirely different thing. It is an unambiguous claim to be true. Such a claim can itself be false but the meaning is entirely clear. It says it’s true!
Contrast with “This statement is false”.
These distinctions become relevant when Omega throws you box puzzles like this.