==============================  CFJ 1259  ==============================

    If this statement is true, Peekee is owed 100 Stems


Caller:                                 Peekee

Judge:                                  Murphy
Judgement:                              DISMISS



Called by Peekee:                       18 Jan 2001 22:06:33 GMT
Assigned to Murphy:                     19 Jan 2001 01:28:03 GMT
Dismissed by Murphy:                    28 Jan 2001 23:38:52 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

Note: the statement is a material conditional.  For it to be false the
antecdent "this statement is true" has to be true and the conclusion false.
But clearly this is a contradiction, so the CFJ should be judged TRUE.

If the above is objected becasue I am not owed 100 Stems consider the
following.  Let theabove statement be S and Peekee is owed 100 Stems P.

Clearly if S is true then P follows.  This depends only on the fact that S is
true, so using Modus Ponendo Ponens we can deduce P only depending on the fact
that S is true.  Then using conditional proof we get the statement  "If S is
True, then P" which has no dependency (in other words is true).

At this point it should be noted that the above statement says exactly what th
origional does, thus we can deduce from it firstly that S is true and secondly
that P also must be true.


Judge Murphy's Arguments:

I cannot find the Statement of CFJ 1259 to be TRUE, because that would
imply the untrue statement "Peekee was owed 100 Stems when CFJ 1259 was
called".  I cannot find the Statement of CFJ 1259 to be FALSE, because
that would be self-contradictory.  Therefore, according to Rule 1563
as well as clause ii) of Rule 1565, I dismiss CFJ 1259.