Who is telling the truth?

[Agathon]

More to the point.

If Krazyhorse is right about the correct usage of "so far", then if someone asks me whether I have so far humped Angelina Jolie, then it becomes true that I have done so whether I answer yay or nay. I'd like to thank KH for making it logically necessary that I have done so.

But again, if it is a matter of interpretation, it sort of ruins the game, since the idea is to work out the criminals' intentions by logical proof, and not to just assume the correct answer. Funny things happen when the words "believe" and "mean" are involved.

[KrazyHorse]

But you're missing the point. My point was that it does require a certain interpretation to make the game solvable. But there's no reason the game ought to be solvable, and it's more interesting if it isn't, since the answer is so transparently evident if it is.

Creekdweller's utterance is neither true nor false – it's the liar paradox, since he just spoke.

Funny, because your point seems to be that your interpretation is correct, while denying that it's an interpretation at all. You make a statement of fact that it is the liar paradox.

For it to be a paradoxical sentence you must make an interpretation as to the underlying meaning of his words. This interpretation is deliberately pathological. Mine is what appears to me to be the natural interpretation (even without the underlying context of the problem as a whole being presumably solvable), as well as the one most strongly implied by the positioning of the words "as yet" relative to the completion of the sentence.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Agathon
More to the point.

If Krazyhorse is right about the correct usage of "so far", then if someone asks me whether I have so far humped Angelina Jolie, then it becomes true that I have done so whether I answer yay or nay.

You're going to need to explain the underlying logic in that derivation.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

But you're missing the point. My point was that it does require a certain interpretation to make the game solvable. But there's no reason the game ought to be solvable, and it's more interesting if it isn't, since the answer is so transparently evident if it is.

Creekdweller's utterance is neither true nor false – it's the liar paradox, since he just spoke.

Funny, because your point seems to be that your interpretation is correct, while denying that it's an interpretation at all. You make a statement of fact that it is the liar paradox.

It is if we take the ordinary meaning of "so far" in contexts like this. But if you want to introduce interpretation, then you ruin the game.

For it to be a paradoxical sentence you must make an interpretation as to the underlying meaning of his words. This interpretation is deliberately pathological. Mine is what appears to me to be the natural interpretation (even without the underlying context of the problem as a whole being presumably solvable), as well as the one most strongly implied by the positioning of the words "as yet" relative to the completion of the sentence.

Again, once you start quibbling about the intentions behind his words, you ruin the point of the game, which was to work out who was lying without having to appeal to intentions.

If you want to make it a practical decision whether the game is solvable, then I would agree (that was the underlying point), but then it loses its nice clean logical allure, since we have to make a decision about whether it is solvable.

[KrazyHorse]

Your attempt to weasel out of it is pretty bad (the "he has not yet made a statement at all" thing). If I said "On Tuesday, such and such happened", did I not really mean Tuesday until I finished the statement? What if I had been killed just before I could utter "such and such happened", would no-one know what day I was referring to?

What?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Agathon


It is if we take the ordinary meaning of "so far" in contexts like this.

No, it isn't.

If I say: "So far, nobody has yet said the word 'guava' in this discussion", then it would take a complete idiot (or philosopher) to claim that I'm a liar because my statement necessarily refers to itself, especially since the words 'so far' are spoken (or, more particularly) wirtten prior to the word 'guava'.

Why are you interpreting 'so far' to include events which happen after its occurence, such as my usage of the word 'guava' or what's-his-name's making of a statement?

This is embarassing, aggie.

[Agathon]

You better leave these questions to philosophers. It seems that you aren't up to the job.

[KrazyHorse]

Again, once you start quibbling about the intentions behind his words, you ruin the point of the game, which was to work out who was lying without having to appeal to intentions.

?

When multiple meanings are allowed by a single statement, and some of them are true while others are either false or are undecidable propositions then an appeal to intention is most definitely in order, kid.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Bring back Asher.

I agree. I just don't care enough about pwning aggie for the 340294th time to make this worth my while.

Say what you will about Asher, but the guy has stamina...

[KrazyHorse]

What's really amazing is that as little respect for philosophers as I had before agathon started posting, I actually have less now.

[KrazyHorse]

Leafs suck, btw.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Leafs suck, btw.

That statement does not require any interpretation, and happens to be true.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

Again, once you start quibbling about the intentions behind his words, you ruin the point of the game, which was to work out who was lying without having to appeal to intentions.

?

When multiple meanings are allowed by a single statement, and some of them are true while others are either false or are undecidable propositions then an appeal to intention is most definitely in order, kid.

Are you being obtuse on purpose?

The point of the puzzle is to work out who is telling the truth from what they say. If we have to speculate about their intentions, there is no point to the game (it's no longer a logical puzzle).

What's funnier: the fact that this is so obvious, or the fact that it has sailed over your head?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


No, it isn't.

If I say: "So far, nobody has yet said the word 'guava' in this discussion", then it would take a complete idiot (or philosopher) to claim that I'm a liar because my statement necessarily refers to itself, especially since the words 'so far' are spoken (or, more particularly) wirtten prior to the word 'guava'.

Only if you were speaking English. If you were to make that statement in Greek, it would not matter where you put the "so far" (much less than it does in English anyway). Your view that the temporal order of words makes a difference is weird. It would mean the same thing if I put the "so far" at the end of the sentence or said it last. Your sentence reads more naturally, but the original one would have been better served by using "before now". It's more interesting if we take what you see as the "deviant" interpretation. Otherwise it is a pedestrian puzzle for pedestrian folks such as yourself.

But none of this changes the fact that the original sentence is ambiguous, and that you are too daft to understand my argument.

But it's niice to see that your ego is as inflated as ever.

[Whoha]

If so far includes himself then hes lying because hes telling the truth(and so on).