The "sentence" R is obviously contradictory.
You can logically translate it to:

s e t <=> ~s e t & ~s e m

Its not satisfiable by Trichotomy. Neither
of the 3 cases s e f, s e t or s e m works.

Thats rather trivial to see.

Dan Christensen schrieb am Montag, 11. September 2023 um 04:44:34 UTC+2:

On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 9:35:54 PM UTC-4, Mild Shock (aka Mr. Collapse) wrote:

People who are older than 40 years, generally have problems
with revenge paradox. They don't see anymore that

if the sentence R were false, this would be a
contradiction, because R says:

R : This sentences is not true and not indeterminate.

Because false is not true and false is not indeterminate,
the sentences should be true.

There are 3 mutually exclusive possibilities here. When 2 of them have been eliminated, then the remaining possibility must hold.

HA, HA! Poor old Mr. Collapse here still doesn't understand what a trichotomy is. Very said at his advanced age.

Hey, BKK, maybe you can convince Mr. Collapse here that 0 and 1 are not numbers. Maybe your FIRST recruit! Today, Mr. Collapse... Tomorrow, the world!

Dan

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Also your "indeterminate" isn't very original:

"Different non-classical theories of truth offer different
explanations of the failure of classical principles. For instance,
sentences that do not satisfy all of the principles of classical
logic have been characterized as ‘paradoxical’ [Kripke Citation1975], ‘unstable’ [Zardini Citation2011], ‘indeterminate’ [McGee Citation1991;
Field Citation2008], ‘glutty’ [Beall Citation2009], both ‘tolerantly assertible and deniable’ [Cobreros et al. Citation2013], and so on.
In turn, these notions have been thought to give rise to
specific revenge arguments" https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00048402.2019.1640323

Calling it paradoxical, as I do, seems to be in line
with Saul Kripke’s influential work in the 1970s

Mild Shock schrieb am Montag, 11. September 2023 um 12:43:54 UTC+2:

The "sentence" R is obviously contradictory.
You can logically translate it to:

s e t <=> ~s e t & ~s e m

Its not satisfiable by Trichotomy. Neither
of the 3 cases s e f, s e t or s e m works.

Thats rather trivial to see.
Dan Christensen schrieb am Montag, 11. September 2023 um 04:44:34 UTC+2:

On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 9:35:54 PM UTC-4, Mild Shock (aka Mr. Collapse) wrote:

People who are older than 40 years, generally have problems
with revenge paradox. They don't see anymore that

if the sentence R were false, this would be a
contradiction, because R says:

R : This sentences is not true and not indeterminate.

Because false is not true and false is not indeterminate,
the sentences should be true.

There are 3 mutually exclusive possibilities here. When 2 of them have been eliminated, then the remaining possibility must hold.

HA, HA! Poor old Mr. Collapse here still doesn't understand what a trichotomy is. Very said at his advanced age.

Hey, BKK, maybe you can convince Mr. Collapse here that 0 and 1 are not numbers. Maybe your FIRST recruit! Today, Mr. Collapse... Tomorrow, the world!

Dan

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 10:44:28 PM UTC+3, bassam karzeddin wrote:

On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 10:04:29 PM UTC+3, Fritz Feldhase wrote:

On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:48:21 PM UTC+2, Dan Christensen wrote:

Let me guess... Like JG and AP, you failed calculus.

AP didn't fail calculus.

Look carefully on to those many young uprising Trolls who are a mere copies of their master historical Trolls 🧌 also, they simply cannot comprehend that culcuus itself is never any new issue because it started strictly thousands of years back by

trying hopelessly to calculate the area of the so-called Circle 🔵 in their languages, nor they are able to understand that such an object like Circle in mathematics actually is a non-existing object & what are they calculating & endlessly
approximating is infact for regular polygons as purely a matter of Eingineering calculations, which is mainly the whole culcuus about being mostly an eingineering or scientific task that is rarely relevant to true mathematics

However, and it is fairly to say it is not only the mathematicians who are blamed into this common human misunderstanding but also the (logicians, philosophers, physicians & all theoretical scientists as well including the physciocologists, .. , etc)

Mainly because such kinds of human mental problems are infact impossible to be cured alone with only mathematicians, since they are the mere victims of the whole issue

But with the help of arising Artificial Intelligence beings (which have no human very sever mentall inhireted diseases), the hope is great to heal the academic human mathematickers independently into this never spoken issue, beside saving the whole

theoretical sciences from the many deeply rooted problems of fictional human invented mathematics for sure 👍

Why humans must waste centuries on problems of their own make like the insolvability of the general quintic equation where the truth that it is never any true problem which needs only a few minutes to fully well-understand by the biggners of clever

students in number theory & Geometry?

It is truly intolerable shame upon the mainstream academic proffessional mathematicians to fight aimlessly & very stupidly against proven truths in their own fields & areas of especilizations

How did they were able to decive their own kinds with too silly numerical tricks the rest of mainstream sheeples for many centuries & centuries to come? No wonder!

But ultimately, they can't meet or beat the published truth any more about most of their false inhereted mouthmatics for sure

BKK

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)