True Sentences

Words are primarily applied to the moral world,

---------- Post added 01-03-2010 at 11:52 AM ----------

What does that mean?

I think it's okay (and correct) to say of sentences that they are true when they express true propositions. Kennethamy agrees, I think. Emil disagrees. I'm not sure of anyone else's position.

fast;116644 wrote:

When I was first told that "words refer," I thought, how talented! And, I suppose you might think the same upon hearing someone say "sentences express." But, couldn't "sentences express meaning" be shorthand for (or at least translate into) "we express meaning with sentences?"

Words are forms, abstractions; and as such, only as good as they tell truth...Truth, like words themselves are forms of relationship, and each is a part of a dynamic of communication...If it is not truth we tell, it is not communication, but mis-communication...And, it is never as simple as: Does the sentence tell truth...Truth is a form of relationship...Truth is a quality we share...So, truth is something both sides in any conversation work out with words rather than state, or accept simply...It is not done when people are done talking, but is a process indistinguishable from life itself..We need truth to survive...Those people who deny us truth deny us life...
---------- Post added 01-03-2010 at 11:52 AM ----------

What does that mean?

CAn you further explain you semantics by taking apart the Barbers tale, where he is the only barber in town and shaves only those who do not shave themselves. Yet the barber shaves himself ,so one the first count we have a paradox already. Then it goes on further and the second proposition cant be true either.

Does this fit in with what you are talking about ?

Mike.

Are you disagreing with the formulation of the Turing halting problem ?

How about the set of all sets who not contain themselves, can or cannot contain itself ?

---------- Post added 05-28-2010 at 08:30 AM ----------

Note: I disagree with some aspects on set theory, but I am interested in hearing it from you Ken...

But can you say all the sentences in the Barbers Paradox are true ?

No idea what the halting problem is. What about the set paradox. What has it to do with the barbershop paradox save they are both paradoxes?

Russell's paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Russell-like paradoxes

As illustrated above for the Barber paradox, Russell's paradox is not hard to extend. Take:

• A transitive verb <V>, that can be applied to its substantive form.
  

Form the sentence:
The <V>er that <V>s all (and only those) who don't <V> themselves, Sometimes the "all" is replaced by "all <V>ers".
An example would be "paint":
The painter that paints all (and only those) that don't paint themselves. or "elect"
The elector (representative), that elects all that don't elect themselves. Paradoxes that fall in this scheme include:

• The barber with "shave".
  
• The original Russell's paradox with "contain": The container (Set) that contains all (containers) that don't contain themselves.
  
• The Grelling-Nelson paradox with "describer": The describer (word) that describes all words, that don't describe themselves.
  
• Richard's paradox with "denote": The denoter (number) that denotes all denoters (numbers) that don't denote themselves. (In this paradox, all descriptions of numbers get an assigned number. The term "that denotes all denoters (numbers) that don't denote themselves" is here called Richardian.)
  

[edit] Related paradoxes

• The liar paradox and Epimenides paradox, whose origins are ancient
  
• The Kleene-Rosser paradox, showing that the original lambda calculus is inconsistent, by means of a self-negating statement
  
• Curry's paradox (named after Haskell Curry), which does not require negation
  
• The smallest uninteresting integer paradox
  

I do not know anything about the halting problem. I don't know what it is. I don't understand your question.

Can you see now how they relate ???

Informal presentation

Let us call a set "abnormal" if it is a member of itself, and "normal" otherwise. For example, take the set of all squares. That set is not itself a square, and therefore is not a member of the set of all squares. So it is "normal". On the other hand, if we take the complementary set that contains all non-squares, that set is itself not a square and so should be one of its own members. It is "abnormal".
Now we consider the set of all normal sets, R. Attempting to determine whether R is normal or abnormal is impossible: If R were a normal set, it would be contained in the set of normal sets (itself), and therefore be abnormal; and if it were abnormal, it would not be contained in the set of normal sets (itself), and therefore be normal. This leads to the conclusion that R is both normal and abnormal: Russell's paradox.

I did not say there was no relation between them. But what difference does that make? We are talking about the barber shop paradox. Why need I say anything about the set paradox or the halting problem (whatever that may be)? To talk about X, why do I have to say anything about Y, unless X relates relevantly to Y in the context of the discussion? I said what I think is true about the barber shop paradox in the context of the OP. End of story. That is why you are so confused all the time. You never can tell what is relevant.

I honestly hope it helps...

Helps what? What has this to do with the OP and its question? Nothing at all, so far as I can tell? That is why you are so confused all the time. You are unable to distinguish issues.

Au revoir.........................

Since the supposition contains a contradiction they cannot all be true together. That is what a contradiction is. A logically inconsistent set of statements.