On 2/17/2012 5:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 16 Feb 2012, at 21:53, Brian Tenneson wrote:

Are you talking about tautology?

"true in no context whatsoever" looks more like a contradiction (the negation of a tautology).


On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net <mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:

    On 2/16/2012 2:15 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

            [SPK] All of this substitution stuff is predicated upon
        the possibility that the brain can be emulated by a
        Universal Turing Machine. It would be helpful if we first
        established that a Turing Machine is capable of what we are
        assuming it do be able to do. I am pretty well convinced
        that it cannot

    Well at least, you state now that you think comp is simply
    false... so it's just trolling about it, when you just reject
    the premices...

        Is there a difference between a statement being true given
    some context and the same sentence being true in no context

Dear Bruno,

Interesting, it does indeed look like a contradiction in the sense of the negation of a tautology. Maybe this can be used to fix or update the law of excluded middle of intuitionist (Heyting) logic. What symbolic representation would this have?



You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to