Re: Use/Mention

[Harry Binswanger hb@xxxxxxxx]

David:
I think my objection was to having a symbol or sentence that refers only to
its own reference (to its own reference, to its own reference, to ...).
It is this that generates such "paradoxes" as the Liar Paradox--e.g., the below:

    

The solution is that there actually is no statement in the angle brackets.
The statement refers to its own reference to ..., as can be seen by the
simpler version:

    ≪The statement in this message in double angle brackets is true.≫

What statement?

I believe this same error is also involved in Goedel's Theorem, since it
amounts to:
    This statement is unprovable in L.

But I admit that I don't fully understand the mathematics of GT. I got the
above from Goedel's original paper, of which I could understand only the
preface. Can you recommend a really simple, clear exposition of GT for
someone who never got past the predicate logic (as in Quine, _Methods of
Logic_)?

Regards,
Harry

At 09:06 AM 1/17/97 -0500, you wrote:
>On 01/17/97 at 06:08 AM,
>  Harry Binswanger  said (in so many words):
>
><- Hey David--whatever happened to my ages-ago philosophical posting to
><- David A. regarding the philosophic use/misuse of this distinction?
>
>I remember it, but not its content very well. Something about stipulating
>names?


Harry Binswanger
hb@xxxxxxxx