König’s paradox: Ordinals

Let’s start by turning back the clock. It is India in the fifth century BCE, the age of the historical Buddha, and a rather peculiar principle of reasoning appears to be in general use. This principle is called the catuskoti, meaning ‘four corners’. It insists that there are four possibilities regarding any statement: it might be true (and true only), false (and false only), both true and false, or neither true nor false.


To get back to something that the Buddha might recognise, all we need to do is make value of into a relation instead of a function. Thus T might be a value of a sentence, as can F, both, or neither. We now have four possibilities: {T}, {F}, {T,F} and { }. The curly brackets, by the way, indicate that we are dealing with sets of truth values rather than individual ones, as befits a relation rather than a function. The last pair of brackets denotes what mathematicians call the empty set: it is a collection with no members, like the set of humans with 17 legs. It would be conventional in mathematics to represent our four values using something called a Hasse diagram, like so:

↗ ↖
{T, F}{ }
↖ ↗

Thus the four kotis (corners) of the catuskoti appear before us.


Even so, you might be wondering how on earth something could be both true and false, or neither true nor false. In fact, the idea that some claims are neither true nor false is a very old one in Western philosophy. None other than Aristotle himself argued for one kind of example. In the somewhat infamous Chapter 9 of De Interpretatione, he claims that contingent statements about the future, such as ‘the first pope in the 22nd century will be African’, are neither true nor false. The future is, as yet, indeterminate. So much for his arguments in the Metaphysics.

The notion that some things might be both true and false is much more unorthodox. But here, too, we can find some plausible examples. Take the notorious ‘paradoxes of self-reference’, the oldest of which, reputedly discovered by Eubulides in the fourth century BCE, is called the Liar Paradox. Here’s its commonest expression:
This statement is false.

Where’s the paradox? If the statement is true, then it is indeed false. But if it is false, well, then it is true. So it seems to be both true and false.


Also Betrand Russel's "Set of All Sets that Do Not Contain Themselves"

Folksonomies: mathematics paradox

/religion and spirituality (0.708159)
/science/social science/philosophy (0.538295)
/art and entertainment/books and literature/science fiction (0.353562)

century BCE (0.935386 (neutral:0.000000)), somewhat infamous Chapter (0.852177 (negative:-0.258060)), 22nd century (0.834106 (neutral:0.000000)), peculiar principle (0.677791 (neutral:0.000000)), Betrand Russel (0.675774 (neutral:0.000000)), historical Buddha (0.665869 (positive:0.206591)), curly brackets (0.644037 (neutral:0.000000)), Hasse diagram (0.636832 (neutral:0.000000)), Liar Paradox (0.627082 (negative:-0.602660)), plausible examples (0.620167 (neutral:0.000000)), individual ones (0.617663 (positive:0.249802)), commonest expression (0.611682 (negative:-0.398642)), contingent statements (0.606399 (negative:-0.271158)), truth values (0.605096 (positive:0.249802)), Western philosophy (0.599368 (neutral:0.000000)), notorious ‘paradoxes (0.594027 (negative:-0.247986)), possibilities (0.467191 (negative:-0.225075)), corners (0.462435 (neutral:0.000000)), relation (0.439975 (positive:0.482925)), catuskoti (0.428941 (negative:-0.296120)), sets (0.428901 (positive:0.249802)), function (0.423194 (positive:0.482925)), future (0.403829 (negative:-0.271158)), set (0.384365 (negative:-0.186178)), self-reference (0.382525 (negative:-0.247986)), sentence (0.373278 (neutral:0.000000)), reasoning (0.366933 (neutral:0.000000)), König (0.366147 (negative:-0.546110)), Ordinals (0.366090 (neutral:0.000000)), India (0.365500 (neutral:0.000000))

Aristotle:Person (0.721719 (negative:-0.271158)), Betrand Russel:Person (0.643413 (neutral:0.000000)), India:Country (0.534760 (neutral:0.000000)), De Interpretatione:City (0.511425 (negative:-0.258060)), Eubulides:Company (0.460630 (neutral:0.000000))

Logic (0.985242): dbpedia | freebase | opencyc
Liar paradox (0.843438): dbpedia | freebase | yago
Self-reference (0.775358): dbpedia | freebase
Bertrand Russell (0.762505): dbpedia | freebase | opencyc | yago
Paradox (0.677328): dbpedia | freebase | opencyc
Truth (0.677066): dbpedia | freebase
Paraconsistent logic (0.590917): dbpedia | freebase | opencyc | yago
Set (0.568204): dbpedia | freebase

 Beyond true and false
Electronic/World Wide Web>Internet Article:  Priest, Graham (5/5/2014), Beyond true and false, Retrieved on 2014-08-09
  • Source Material [aeon.co]
  • Folksonomies: mathematics buddhism