All Liar, No Paradox

A statement S_0 asserts that a statement S_1 is a statement that S_1 is false.

The statement S_0 violates an axiom of logic, so it doesn’t really matter whether the ostensible statement S_1, the so-called liar, really is a statement or has a truth value.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Epimenides, Foundations of Mathematics, Liar Paradox, Logic, Logical Graphs, Paradox, Peirce, Pragmatics, Rhetoric, Semantics, Semiositis, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Syntax, Zeroth Law Of Semiotics and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to All Liar, No Paradox

  1. Can you explain that in this case how S0 (the first statement) violates an axiom of logic and what is that axiom?

    • Jon Awbrey says:

      I’m preparing to discuss this further in my next few posts. I picked the liar puzzle to illustrate some points in Peirce’s semiotic approach to logic because this hoary old precipitate appears to dissolve relatively quickly when immersed in the pragmatic medium of sign relations. But I’m not sure it works the same way for fish who swim in other seas. So there is an issue of cross-paradigm communication that needs to be discussed along the way.

  2. Pingback: Zeroth Law Of Semiotics • Comment 6 | Inquiry Into Inquiry

  3. Pingback: Zeroth Law Of Semiotics • Comment 7 | Inquiry Into Inquiry

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s