Thakyou. I stand corrected on the technicalities of Cohen's work. But as an example of 'problems' with classical logic I still claim validity.
I have no idea where you are hoping to go with my alleged 'confusion' between syntax and semantics etc. As far as I'm concerned the contexts in which you want to differentiate between those terms is nothing to do with the context of my anti-classical logic position. — fresco
Russell's Paradox was dismissed by Wittgenstein as being 'aberrant language'. — fresco
"CH has a definite truth value. It's either true or false. — fresco
That's semantics. But syntactically, we have no proof".
I'm not clear what you mean by 'syntax' here. The 'semantic point' is that the phrase 'definite truth value' automatically invokes the semantic context of classical binary logic. — fresco
....on further consideration, I assume you mean 'rules governing what constitutes a valid form of answer'. On that assumption we are touching on 'Zen Koan' territory which forces the pupil to consider the assumptions regarding the structure of 'the question'.. In that case my identification the inapplicability of the rules behind the assumptions of classical logic could be regarded as a 'syntactic' point — fresco
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.