Talk:Tautology

The third 'See also" is deliberate?

As an example of a non-tautology (& for want of a better home) - the term glottal stop is non-referential.

82.44.143.26 (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "The third 'See also" is deliberate?" Good gOD! Is it? My word, whatever next? 14:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC) TerrySmall.png [[Image:Toast s.png|alt=Toast|text-bottom|20px|link=User talk:SusanG]]

Being pseud(o) ironic.

To be self-referential it would be pronounced glo'al stop.

82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

"Technically speaking, every mathematical statement is a tautology"
Technically speaking, every mathematical statement is a tautology? That doesn't seem... accurate. Mathematics certainly allows for predicates, and conditional truth. Every step of a proof is an implication that is not necessarily bidirectional. Godel certainly seemed to make a pretty good case that no mathematical system can be innately tautological. I'm not sure if this is a good statement to make? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

"Jesus loves me this I know, for the bible tells me so"
if ye hollers let him go....

and bingo was his name-o

2A00:23C7:7209:8C01:FDFB:501:A834:150E (talk) 21:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)