10 May
2011
10 May
'11
12:51 p.m.
I understand why the second sentence is called the literal contrapositive, but the "this" in that sentence refers of course to something other than the "this" in the first sentence. Which is at least one reason it's only a "literal" but not actual contrapositive. --Dan Jim wrote: << The sentence "If two plus two equals four, then the premise of this sentence contains numbers" is true, while its literal contrapositive "If the premise of this sentence does not contain numbers, then two plus two does not equal four" is false. Can anyone find a more elegant example of a true self-referential sentence of the form "If ..., then ..." whose literal contrapositive is false?
Sometimes the brain has a mind of its own.