On Wednesday 06 February 2008 5:37 Zefram wrote: > Ben Caplan wrote: > >Do I hereby initiate an inquiry CFJ on this sentence? > > No, you don't. The question-statement equivalence applies only for > the purposes of the subject of an inquiry case, not for acting by > announcement. Such is my interpretation, at least.
The theory is that, if the CFJ exists and the question-statement equivalence applies, then the question is translated whole and in all contexts, thus rendering the original question effective as a statement *in general*. This causes the sentence to initiate the CFJ, affirming the hypothetical. I believe this interpretation is consistent and stable. On Feb 6, 2008 5:48 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Feb 6, 2008 4:24 PM, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This is precisely the logical structure embodied in the assertion "This > > statement is true." Unlike "This statement is true", however, the resolution > > of the second CFJ affects the interpretation of rule 591, and therefore a > > ruling of IRRELEVANT would be inappropriate. > > > > I therefore recommend a ruling of UNDECIDABLE on the second CFJ. > > (The first CFJ, if it exists, is trivially TRUE.) > > Why UNDECIDABLE? If the first CFJ exists, then the second CFJ is > TRUE. If the first CFJ does not exist, then the second CFJ is FALSE. > There's no undecidability here. > > The analogy doesn't make sense to me either. "This statement is true" > is a tautology, not a paradox. It's UNDECIDABLE whether the first CFJ exists. A tautology is still neither clearly TRUE nor clearly FALSE. watcher -- There's no sense crying over every mistake; you just keep on trying till you run out of cake.
