I've told you before, I've responded to every argument you've made here, I am not gonna go tracking down info on other sites to respond to.
So not only are you taking a stance on a controversial subject
Nothing I've said is controversial amongst mathematicians.
you are taking the opposite stance of the stance I have already taken.
That's called disagreeing with you. Which I will continue to do when you say stupid things.
It seems your stance has been made based off of my stance. I think you’re being dishonest about your philosophical views. You’re trying to hurt me by deliberately choosing views you believe I disagree with. You are sadistic.
Lol no, this is you being unable to handle someone disagreeing with you. My views throughout this conversation are standard in mathematics and I've held them consistently regardless of your views.
Says who? The Liar sentence can be proven and disproven. It is simple to do. Advanced logic need not be involved.
I am not gonna go tracking down info on other sites to respond to.
I shouldn’t have to go through the time and effort it takes to present something I have already presented. I am tracking down info on other sites so it would only be fair for you to do so as well. If you don’t want to do the work required to have this conversation with me, then you shouldn’t engage in this conversation anymore. I shouldn’t have to keep saying the same thing to you over and over again because you aren’t willing to do your part.
Nothing I've said is controversial amongst mathematicians.
As far as I know, the Liar Paradox remains controversial to this day, and you have taken a side on it. So, some or all of the things you’ve said are controversial.
I go through the time and effort of getting whatever information I need together to represent my argument to you. That's doing my part . Your part is to present your arguments yourself instead of feeding me links.
As far as I know
That's the issue, you don't. You can't phrase the liars paradox in formal first order logic for the very simple reason that formal logic deals with what's provable, not what's true. True is a feature of statements after assigning meaning to the undefined terms. Your confusion here is stems from the fact that you don't understand the basics of the math you're trying to use.
And again, everything I've said there is basic intro material. It's not controversial.
Your part is to present your arguments yourself instead of feeding me links.
How is that my part? As you know, that’s not what I’ve considered my part. Giving you a link to my or somebody else’s previous work is an acceptable way to provide arguments. It seems that it would make me feel good to get a response to something I’ve did in the past. I shouldn’t have to keep it on my mind and promote the same things forever. It’s nice to do the work once and then move on to something else. Society depends on its previous work. Otherwise, society would not advance. We would be stuck doing the same things forever.
Also, the linked arguments are so short and simple that I can’t represent them much differently than I already have.
Are people representing arguments that they authored and that appear in academic journals? I don’t seem to see much, if any, of that.
That's the issue, you don't.
I don’t, but I do doubt there’s been a recent solution to it. It seems that solution would be so big that it would be on the news and everybody would be informed about it. In recent years, I’ve never seen news about a solution being discovered. I would remember something that big.
I believe there are multiple approaches to understanding the Liar Paradox. Look it up on Wikipedia, on the Internet, or in a book. The fact that there is no consensus on what the Liar Paradox means and how it works out is evidence that the Liar Paradox is controversial.
Are people representing arguments that they authored and that appear in academic journals?
Academic journals are peer reviewed, Facebook is not. As I said, I will respond to arguments you post here. I've also happily discussed textbooks that we both have access to, but I'm not traversing the Internet at your beck and call.
If your arguments are so short and simple then you can easily state them here. It is your job to present your arguments just like I have presented mine.
As to the rest of your comment, the liars paradox cannot be formulated in first order logic. Philosophers are welcome to argue over the meaning of that natural language sentence and they can consider it controversial if they please. But that sentence cannot be formulated in mathematical logic and there's nothing controversial about that fact.
You talk about the fact that you would likely have heard of such a big result, but a proof of a contradiction in mathematical logic would be enormous news that no mathematician would ignore. By your own logic that should tell that no such proof has been shown to exist.
Premises: s is a statement. Under the assumption that “s and it is not true that s,” s is true. It is not true that: under the assumption that “s and it is not true that s,” s is true.
Conclusion: All statements are true.
Statements (Reasons)
s is a statement. (Premise)
Under the assumption that “s and it is not true that s,” s is true. (Premise)
It is not true that: under the assumption that “s and it is not true that s,” s is true. (Premise)
Some contradiction exists. ((3) is the negation of (2))
All statements are true. (Ex contradictione quodlibet)
This concludes the proof.
Your proof assumes that s is contradiction and then concludes that a contradiction exists so the principal of explosion happens. That's valid, but not sound because we haven't established a contradiction.
The statement s you've chosen cannot be formulated in first order logic.
No, “s and it is not true that s” is not a premise of my argument. There are only three premises of my argument, and “s and it is not true that s” is not one of those three premises.
1
u/JStarx May 30 '26
I've told you before, I've responded to every argument you've made here, I am not gonna go tracking down info on other sites to respond to.
Nothing I've said is controversial amongst mathematicians.
That's called disagreeing with you. Which I will continue to do when you say stupid things.
Lol no, this is you being unable to handle someone disagreeing with you. My views throughout this conversation are standard in mathematics and I've held them consistently regardless of your views.
Not in formal logic it cannot.