On Sun, Jun 06, 2021 at 03:19:56PM +, Falsifian wrote:
> > validly specified. This case is PARADOXICAL.
>
> Nit: I don't think you've actually assigned a judgement to this case.
> You didn't specify the action of assigning a judgement, nor did you
> announce that you performed it.
>
> --
>
Aris wrote:
I have some final notes. First, we need to
resolve the cultural dissonance between
a model that is built to accept paradoxes
and one that is built to avoid them. Note
that neither of these models suggest that
we should go around legislating in a way
that causes paradoxes. The
2 matches
Mail list logo
