*This originally appeared as a side discussion here.*

*Programming languages*, by design, are much more flexible than most *mathematical languages* (*formal languages*, in general). Programming languages have `Try`

, `Catch`

, and `Error`

handling clauses (and keywords). So, logical paradoxes when implemented (albeit loosely implemented since the implementation of the Liar Sentence occurs at the level of a non-core language expression in programming - e.g. in logic, the Liar Paradox is a feature of the logic itself not a user's construction after the fact) will typically just recurse indefinitely (throwing an infinite recursion error and getting caught in an available `Try`

-`Catch`

clause).

Consider this programming discussion thread on Reddit.

```
// Implementation from Reddit Thread
bool ThisStatementIs(bool x) {
return ThisStatementIs(!x);
}
```

The participants to that thread discuss how it's an imprecise but fairly close implementation that results in infinite recursion. I haven't thought too much about the *programming language* aspects of the Liar Paradox and it's fun to consider some of these intersections.

The above has to do with the following properties:

*Propositional Depth*a quick sketch of Englebretsen who argues that any acceptable sentence must have a*determinate*,*finite*,*propositional depth*: One sentence can convey multiple propositions (by being the conjunction of multiple other independent sentences:`"It is raining today."`

,`"I am happy."`

,`"It is raining today and I am happy."`

or referring to other sentences`"Everything that person said is a lie."`

each of which conveys a proposition).

`i.`

Crassly, a sentence has *finite sentential depth* when we can reduce the contents of a top-level sentence into all of its atomic sentences in a *finite* sequence of steps. Each proposition-bearing sentence then ultimately conveys a *finite* number of propositions - *finite* and *determinate propositional depth* thereby. Sentences whose *propositional depth* is both *n* and *n+1* have *indeterminate propositional depth*. Self-recursive expressions have this (as do several others that aren't). This property of sentences aligns with the intuition that expressions in computer science and programming should not have infinite recursion (although there are some subtle differences between the two concepts).

`ii.`

I think the *propositional depth solution* captures a real and interesting linguistic property but dispenses with many sentences that are completely valid expressions (valid even at compile time in almost all programming languages). Any *self-reflexive* sentence of any kind has an *indeterminate propositional depth* and would be ruled out according to Englebretsen. This threatens to rid programming languages of concepts like *idempotence*, *reflection*, some *metaprogramming*, and so on. Statements made at a certain level of abstraction range over infinitely-many expressions - do these then too lack meaning? As a result, despite finding the characterization of *propositional depth* to be intriguing, I disagree with the overall proposal (as a *solution* for the Liar Paradox).

There's the additional point that every sentence that happens to have indeterminate propositional depth as a result of containing a Truth Predicate is captured by my proposal. Note that Englebretsen doesn't specify the exact way such sentences would be ruled out. Arguably the way they'd be ruled out is to just restrict the T-Schema.

*Infinite Recursion*in computer science is a problem for at least two reasons:

`(a)`

the practical outcome of an interpreter or virtual machine iterating indefinitely in an unbreakable loop locks a thread (very bad in synchronous programming and still bad in asynchronous or concurrent programming since the thread would not release) and

`(b)`

*infinite recursion* often represents mathematical properties like the above that while not always mathematically ruled out (like self-reflexive expressions), are often problematic for other reasons (like bad programming). *Infinite recursion* is usually sandwiched in `Try`

-`Catch`

clauses that ultimately throw an `Error`

or `Exception`

terminating the thread or process (depending).

*Run Time*and*Compile Time*- programming languages separate*write time*,*compile time*, and*run time*. Logical inconsistencies can be introduced at*write time*and are then caught at*compile time*(along with syntax or grammar violations). Other inconsistencies (even ones involving`Booleans`

) can appear at*run time*(depending on one's programming language). Mathematical logic has no such distinction between*semantics*and*syntax*- they "occur simultaneously" (so to speak) and completely align in systems that are both*sound*(everything provable is true) and*complete*(everything true is provable). (Proof is usually taken to be*syntactic*and when a proof system is both*sound*and*complete*anything proven is also true within that system.)*Programming*and*Programming Languages*allow for inconsistencies to a degree that*mathematical languages*(programming is in some sense mathematical - I mean the difference between say ZFC Set Theory and say Java) do not. For example,*return Types*might be incompatible, some value that's supposed to be something isn't, or some asynchronous call doesn't return (in time or just at all) causing data to be missing.*Booleans*while the`Boolean Type`

exists in most programming languages, we observe that the Liar Paradox emerges only in languages with*Predication*(*first*or*higher*order, not*zero*). In other words, the Liar Paradox cannot be formulated using`Boolean`

objects alone.*Undecidability*- more precisely, the Liar Paradox (and other Semantic Paradoxes) are formally undecidable since the Liar Paradox lacks stable fixed points (it oscillates between truth-values). As such, no determinate answer terminates the recursion chain (resulting in the*infinite recursion*). It's pretty cool to see this happen empirically and in real time (programmatically)!

- Remarks on Truth-Grounding and the Liar
- Ground Facts and Truth
- Addressing Metalogical Justification
- Propositional Stability and Cohen Forcing
- Truth as a Prosentential Operator
- The Liar Paradox in Programming
- Fun Math Stuff and the Philosopher's Stone
- Fun Math Stuff and the Philosopher's Stone #2
- Fun Math Stuff and the Philosopher's Stone #3
- Restrictionism and the Four Corners of Logic

##### post: 9/28/2021

##### update: 9/29/2021