Timeline for Is Tarski's derivation of the Liar paradox valid?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
32 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 17, 2019 at 23:01 | history | bumped | CommunityBot | This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed. | |
| Apr 19, 2019 at 23:01 | history | bumped | CommunityBot | This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed. | |
| Dec 20, 2018 at 22:02 | history | bumped | CommunityBot | This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed. | |
| Nov 20, 2018 at 21:33 | comment | added | Joshua | You need 3 valued truth to resolve junk like this. | |
| Nov 20, 2018 at 21:02 | history | bumped | CommunityBot | This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed. | |
| Oct 21, 2018 at 21:00 | history | bumped | CommunityBot | This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed. | |
| Sep 21, 2018 at 20:01 | history | bumped | CommunityBot | This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed. | |
| Aug 22, 2018 at 19:01 | history | bumped | CommunityBot | This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed. | |
| Jul 23, 2018 at 18:47 | history | bumped | CommunityBot | This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed. | |
| Jun 23, 2018 at 17:57 | history | bumped | CommunityBot | This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed. | |
| May 24, 2018 at 17:26 | history | edited | Sigurd Vojnov | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 3308 characters in body
|
| May 24, 2018 at 16:04 | history | edited | Geoffrey Thomas♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
grammar corrected
|
| May 24, 2018 at 15:53 | history | edited | Sigurd Vojnov | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 3308 characters in body
|
| May 24, 2018 at 11:54 | answer | added | Sigurd Vojnov | timeline score: -1 | |
| May 24, 2018 at 11:04 | history | edited | Sigurd Vojnov | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1312 characters in body
|
| May 24, 2018 at 2:22 | history | edited | Sigurd Vojnov | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 2429 characters in body
|
| May 24, 2018 at 1:07 | comment | added | Sigurd Vojnov | At the moment we are not discussing Tarskis proof. We are arguing about a detail: Whether the following derivation is correct or not. You claim it to be incorrect but you give no proof! 1) x is false. 2) x = "x is false". 3) "x is false" is false. | |
| May 24, 2018 at 0:28 | history | edited | Sigurd Vojnov | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 2260 characters in body
|
| May 23, 2018 at 23:37 | history | edited | Sigurd Vojnov | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 2260 characters in body
|
| May 23, 2018 at 21:46 | comment | added | Sigurd Vojnov | Yes its me writing in both places. Anything wrong with that? Here I ask but there I answer. | |
| May 23, 2018 at 21:44 | history | edited | Sigurd Vojnov | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 319 characters in body
|
| May 23, 2018 at 21:17 | comment | added | Conifold | Possible duplicate of What formal logical systems "resolve" the Liar Paradox? | |
| May 23, 2018 at 21:10 | history | edited | Sigurd Vojnov | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 319 characters in body
|
| May 23, 2018 at 19:53 | comment | added | Sigurd Vojnov | I just prove sentences like (i) to be false! I assume them to be true, then I apply Leibniz law on them, simplify and then they become a contradiction! Nothing similar can be done on the alternative: The T-sentence. So WHY I should believe the T-sentence to be false when the identity statement clearly is false? Hmm... I think this matter needs a posting of its own! | |
| May 23, 2018 at 16:59 | history | edited | Sigurd Vojnov | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
answering a comment
|
| May 23, 2018 at 10:48 | comment | added | Sigurd Vojnov | Relevant comments! Thank you. I will consider them and extend my post later today. | |
| May 22, 2018 at 5:26 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jun 1, 2018 at 3:03 | |||||
| May 21, 2018 at 7:40 | comment | added | Mauro ALLEGRANZA | In (1) Tarski refers to the sentence "The sentence printed in this paper on p. 347,l. 31, is not true." with the name : "s". Thus, the tuth-condition become : (1) "s" is true IFF ... | |
| May 21, 2018 at 6:16 | comment | added | Mauro ALLEGRANZA | Not clear... Tarski applies the (negated) truth-predicate "... is not true" to a sentence getting a new sentence : "The sentence printed ... is not true". | |
| May 20, 2018 at 22:37 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackPhilosophy/status/998331808226906114 | ||
| May 20, 2018 at 18:49 | history | edited | Sigurd Vojnov | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 21 characters in body
|
| May 20, 2018 at 18:42 | history | asked | Sigurd Vojnov | CC BY-SA 4.0 |