The possibility of circle references in human language is totally independent of consistancy of mathematics. It's common sense and it can also be proved.
"This statement about axiomatic set theory is false."
"The class of all classes that do not include themselves, do not include itself."
"Next sentence is false. Previous sentence is true."
Statements with circle references may conflict with the Aristotelian logic of terms, but do not interfere with mathematical deduction, because there is an logically equivalent and consistent three valued logic, which admit circle references.
The trick is to split 'false' into two logically equivalent but different alternatives: 'false' and 'absurd' in a systematic algebraic way, which results in a unique commutative semiring which can be interpreted as a three valued logic that preserve all tautologies and rules of inference. All theorems can be proved and absurd statements exists besides false statements and as harmless.
Member for 5 years, 11 months
31 profile views
Last seen Jul 10 at 19:15
- Mathematics 12.7k 12.7k 33 gold badges1818 silver badges6868 bronze badges
- MathOverflow 782 782 66 silver badges1616 bronze badges
- Stack Overflow 688 688 55 silver badges1515 bronze badges
- Physics 481 481 33 silver badges1616 bronze badges
- Earth Science 207 207 11 silver badge77 bronze badges
- View network profile
Top network posts
- 49 Any odd number is of form $a+b$ where $a^2+b^2$ is prime
- 34 Continuous relations?
- 28 Is there a domain "larger" than (i.e., a supserset of) the complex number domain?
- 20 Every prime number divide some sum of the first $k$ primes.
- 18 An example of a problem which is difficult but is made easier when a diagram is drawn
- 16 Conjecture: $\pi(x)\ge \pi\circ\pi(x)+\pi\circ\pi\circ\pi(x)+\cdots$
- 16 A topology on the set of lines?
- View more network posts →