hi,
with reference to http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/p/par-liar.htm it says The Liar Paradox is an argument that arrives at a contradiction by reasoning about a Liar Sentence. The most familiar Liar Sentence is the following self-referential sentence: (1) This sentence is false. Experts in the field of philosophical logic have never agreed on the way out of the trouble despite 2,300 years of attention. Here is the trouble--a sketch of the Liar Argument that reveals the contradiction: If (1) is true, then (1) is false. On the other hand, if (1) is false, then it is true to say (1) is false; but, because the Liar Sentence is saying precisely that (namely that it is false), (1) is true. So (1) is true if and only if it is false. Since (1) is one or the other, it is both. As it says-they are self referecial statements.What do we learn from the liars paradox? We arrive at a senseless result-doesn't all other paradoxes do that-with the difference that they pick only either true or false-which "they so strongly beleive in" and come with the result they want?IS n't that all paradoxes are trying to do? Regards Sarath. __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
