论文部分内容阅读
莫绍揆教授在[2]中一开始罗列了如下三个命题: (*) Epimcnides(克里特岛人)说:凡克里特岛人都说慌。 (1) 现在我说一句假话(Eubulides)。 (2) (再添附下列“事实”):而克里特岛人其余的话的确都是慌话(Russell)。 然后莫教授接着指出:‘最近朱梧檟志在两篇文章[1]、[2]中强调了(*)与(1)(2)的区别,指出前者并非真正的悖论,而现在仍然有人把前者当作悖论来对待,朱同志认为“是一种误解或疏忽”。其实朱同志还忽略了另一种情况。当提到古代相传的悖论时,不能不提到该悖论的原形(*),而在作描述性的谈论中(不作详细的严格推导),没有必要把条
At the beginning of [2], Professor Mo Shao-hsu outlined the following three propositions: (*) Epimcnides (Crete) said: All of Crete people said panic. (1) Now I say an Eubulides. (2) (adding the following “fact”): The rest of the Cretaceous is indeed Russell. Professor Mo then went on to say: ’Recently, Zhu Wu Chih-tung emphasized the difference between (*) and (1) (2) in two articles [1] and [2] and pointed out that the former is not a true paradox, The former treated as a paradox, and Zhu considered it “a misunderstanding or negligence.” In fact, Comrade Zhu ignored the other situation. When it comes to ancient paradoxes that are handed down, one can not but mention the prototype of the paradox (*), and in the descriptive discussion (without making a detailed, rigorous deduction) it is not necessary to