4
« on: November 09, 2008, 04:27:54 PM »
Cheers Peter,
I've only been back a couple of times but had noticed the new plans and am interested in how that pans out.
jk;
Had to look at this bivalence thingy but pretty quickly "Lukasiewicz introduced a third value" jumps out.
While I won't pretend to understand the depth to which logic can descend a 'third value' is what I had imagined the statement needed.
When it comes to logically proving anything: All the philosophers I have known have been pretty happy at their ability to argue that they can prove anything, the argument for a horse having an infinite number of legs jumps to mind.
While it was harder for me to picture the 1,2,3 statement I eventually figured that it was no different to saying [1: 1 is false], it's just a trick to take your attention away from the important bit, the distraction technique that illusionists use if you like.