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
Is there a difference between a statement being true given
some context and the same sentence being true in no context
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 firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at