[FOM] About Paradox Theory

[Rob Arthan]

On 18 Sep 2011, at 23:27, Rob Arthan wrote:

> 
> On 17 Sep 2011, at 16:05, hdeutsch at ilstu.edu wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Here is the argument concerning the "paradox of grounded classes" to save people from having to look it up:
>> 
>> The following argument is first-order valid:
>> 
>> AyEzAx(F(xz) <--> x=y).  Therefore,
>> 
>> -EwAx(F(xw) <--> Au([F(xu) --> Ey(F(yu) & -Ez{F(zu) & F(zy)])]).
> 
> I think something has gone missing in your transcription here: AyEzAx(F(xz) <--> x=y) is not true for every interpretation of F (e.g., if F is identically false).

In case this is still confusing anyone, it became clear from later posts that ". Therefore." here is intended to be read as the horizontal line between succedent and antecedent in an object level inference, and not as a meta level modality connecting two meta level truths.

Regards,

Rob.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </pipermail/fom/attachments/20110924/f18cac47/attachment.html>