# FW: paradoxes and intuitionist logic

**btanksley@hifn.com**
btanksley@hifn.com

*Fri, 20 Aug 1999 16:44:42 -0700*

>* From: iepos@tunes.org [mailto:iepos@tunes.org]
*>* Subject: Re: FW: paradoxes and intuitionist logic
*
>* Anyhow... I don't see the need for the "x well-formed" condition,
*>* In fact, if it rules out 'x's involving paradoxes (applications
*>* of Y and kin, things that may not have normal forms), then
*>* the resulting
*>* system is unacceptable to me, since it can occasionally be
*>* useful to talk
*>* about these paradoxes (for instance, so that the system itself could
*>* state paradoxes' paradox-hood). remember that i hope to
*>* prevent faulty
*>* reasoning about paradoxes by restricting specific reasoning patterns
*>* rather than tossing them out of the system entirely.
*
It's all good and well to state that something is a paradox, but once you've
done that you can't use boolean logic, and more than you can consider the
set of all sets.
Naive set theory is bogus. So is naive logic.
If you want to really play with paradoxes, you have to switch to fuzzy
logic.
>* - iepos
*
-Billy