problems with quote

Matthew L. Ginsberg <>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 91 08:27:36 PDT
From: Matthew L. Ginsberg <>
Message-id: <9106031527.AA05817@t.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: problems with quote

Either I'm missing something, or the current proposal is.  Consider the
following sentence:

	(<=> (true $p) (probability $p 1.0))

which is surely something I should be able to write down in the given
language.  But now what if I say

	(<=> $p (not (probability $p 1.0)))

[In other words, "this statement is not true."  I've just said it by using
probability instead of "true".]

Now you get the same problems as in the classical paradox, since the
two ways to assign a value to true(p) are in conflict.

I can't see any way around this.  You can't, for example, say that any
term that appears in a sentence with true gets special treatment, since you
obviously have to take the transitive closure of that relation and you're
going to end up losing the semantics of FOL completely.

						Matt Ginsberg