>>15241 Then again, Suika made a positive assertion thet Grim's question is a lie. If she can tell when somebody lies she should either know that Grim is lying with his question or that he isn't. Either way, she must know that the truth value of the question is 'false' in order to correctly assert that it is a lie.
And the simplest definition of a lie is 'A statement that does not match the facts'. By this definition one can lie without knowing it if you believe something that is untrue, but at the same time there is naturally a distinction between intentional and unintentional lies.
Of course, truth outside formal logic is a vaguely defined term anyway. I'm just going with the simplest one.
>>15246 You know, that's a damn good point that I had overlooked, but it doesn't prove what you think it does.
We're getting into into really murky waters here, but logically the question as phrased isn't about the truth value of the paradox itself, it is about the existence of a truth value. It would only be a lie if we would have phrased it in a way that ruled out other possibilities than true or false, but we didn't, i.e. if we had said that 'This statement is either true or false, which one is it?', your point would stand, but the conjunction 'or' does not in itself exclude other possibilities, it just connects two of them. You're mixing it up with 'either-or', which implies that one of the options must be correct.
It would, perhaps, count as lying by omission but even that's a stretch. Basically we're asking the following:
'If we were to assert the liar paradox, would then the liar paradox have a truth value?'
The simplest way to answer would be a simple 'no', and that would be true, as other possibilities exist. Therefore we're still asking a honest question, as there is at least one correct answer. And if this is the case, the question isn't a lie, it's just a logical riddle, even if it is a hard one.
Therefore Suika is still incorrect in terming the question a lie, no matter if she refers to the Liar Paradox or the meta-question about the existance of truth values of the liar paradox.
Additionally Suika herself made a positive claim, she said that the question itself is a lie. This means that she has implicitly assumed that the truth value of the questions is false, which is incorrect. Therefore she has, by making false assumptions and a declarative statement actually claimed that something that is incorrect is true, and therefore she has lied, even though she perhaps doesn't know it herself.
So I'd argue that my point, as currently amended, still stands. I could certainly be wrong, but I can't find any errors in my reasoning myself.
Therfore and in final conclusion, it is actually Grimn?r who, by careful if unwitting phrasing of the question, tricked Suika into lying. Truly he is as wise as his namesake.
Well played, Wizard.
