Talk:George Boolos

Philosophy: Philosophers / Logic / Contemporary Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophers
	Logic
	Contemporary philosophy

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Untitled[edit]

The following was presented by Boolos in the Harvard Review of Philosophy, 1996.

Three Gods, A B and C, are called, in some order, True
False and Random. True always speaks truly, False
always speaks falsely, but whether Random speaks truly
or falsely is a completely random matter. Your task is
to determine the identities of A, B and C by asking
three yes-no questions; each question must be put to
exactly one God. The Gods understand English, but will
answer all questions in their own language, in which
the words for 'yes' and 'no' are 'da' and 'ja', in some
order. You do not know which word means which.

Now can anyone figure out the answer? (c;
If anyone needs a hint, let me know on my talk page.
- Eric Herboso 03:36, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

also available in Logic, Logic, and Logic, in case anyone finds it easier to looks for it there, under the title, "The Hardest Logic Problem in the World." The puzzle itself is credited to Raymond Smullyan, if I am not mistaken. (For the record, I don't think it's the hardest logic problem in the world, though it is a pretty good one. And yes, I did solve it myself. That strikes me as the best evidence that it's no that difficult: I'm just not that smart.) Captain Wacky 07:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frege's Basic Law V[edit]

In the article, the 3rd paragraph of the section Work mentions Boolos' work on Frege's Grundgesetze and the influence of Russell's paradox on it. At the end, the sentence "The resulting system [Frege Arithmetic, i.e., Frege's logic of Grundgesetze with Basic Law V replaced with Hume's Principle] has since been the subject of intense work" has the tag {{Citation needed}}. Would a reference to, for instance, Richard Heck's book Frege's Theorem (Book info // list of Heck's publications) — which discusses Frege Arithmetic almost exclusively — be considered as a suitable citation? YuujiSajaki (talk) 11:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]