Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Re: The key undecidable instance that I know about
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2025 18:45:12 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <d94856628e645179cf16c878d643fb0568a60be9@i2pn2.org>
References: <vqkib1$r5np$1@dont-email.me>
 <3b57384a57c71e1880fe3f1df975003c1d743c07@i2pn2.org>
 <vqksgr$sf7f$2@dont-email.me>
 <c2a4c70287c029f462d5579a8602746386f546fc@i2pn2.org>
 <vql4mq$uv13$1@dont-email.me>
 <9a2fbcc7a803bc91d320117f8c8e03e03799e9b3@i2pn2.org>
 <vqlmtf$11p4p$2@dont-email.me>
 <7cd6d8a1477fce2ef564f74f49ebbff8074ad11b@i2pn2.org>
 <vqn1p6$1drh6$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2025 22:45:12 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3793041"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vqn1p6$1drh6$2@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0

On 3/10/25 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/10/2025 6:04 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/9/25 11:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/9/2025 8:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/9/25 6:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/9/2025 4:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/9/25 4:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/9/2025 2:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/9/25 1:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Is the Liar Paradox True or False?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> LP := ~True(LP)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)).
>>>>>>>>> LP = not(true(LP)).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
>>>>>>>>> false.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Its infinitely recursive structure makes it neither true nor 
>>>>>>>>> false.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The liar's paradox isn't an "undecidable" instance, as 
>>>>>>>> "undecidable" is about a problem that has a true or false answer 
>>>>>>>> that can not be computed for every case.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tarski thought that is was undecidable and anchored his
>>>>>>> whole proof in it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tarski's Liar Paradox from page 248
>>>>>>>     It would then be possible to reconstruct the antinomy of the 
>>>>>>> liar
>>>>>>>     in the metalanguage, by forming in the language itself a 
>>>>>>> sentence
>>>>>>>     x such that the sentence of the metalanguage which is correlated
>>>>>>>     with x asserts that x is not a true sentence.
>>>>>>>     https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_247_248.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note, he says to construct the antinomy of the liar in the 
>>>>>> METALANGUAGE representing the statement x in the LANGUAGE. Thus 
>>>>>> "x" is *NOT* the liar, but something that with the additional 
>>>>>> information of the metalanguage can be reduced to it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "the antinomy of the liar in the metalanguage"
>>>>> <is>
>>>>> {the antinomy of the liar in the metalanguage}
>>>>
>>>> So, you admit you don't understand what that means?
>>>>
>>>> Do you understand the differene between the metalanguage and the 
>>>> language?
>>>>
>>>> You do understand that the whole proof is about the Truth Predicate 
>>>> in the LANGUAGE, not the Metalanguage.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And my understanding of his metalanguage that I have
>>>>> had for several years and just refreshed from the
>>>>> original source material does seem to prove that
>>>>> this does mean that Tarski did anchor his whole
>>>>> proof in the antinomy of the liar.
>>>>
>>>> And clearly you don't understand the meaning of the metalanguage.
>>>>
>>>> Note, the antinomy of the liar in the metalanguage is a result that 
>>>> comes from the actual statement "x", that is in the language gets 
>>>> manipulated based on new concepts from the metalanguage allowing it 
>>>> to be simplifed.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That does not really show any depth of understanding.
>>> You might have greater depth, yet did not show it yet.
>>
>> No, your reply, by not addressing *ANY* of
>>
>>>
>>>> Your ignorance of how that is done is NOT an error on Tarski's part, 
>>>> just stupidity on yours.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yet you never said how it should be done, thus I
>>> have no way to tell what you say is not pure bluster.
>>>
>>
>> Maybe because what you want to define can't be.
>>
>> Tarski shows how to derive that part in the earlier work. It is clear 
>> that you just don't have the brains to understand that discussion, and 
>> it isn't my job to educate you on that, particularly when you have 
>> declared that you idea of logic fundamentally disagrees with the 
>> actual rules of logic, so you fundamentally don't understand how to 
>> use logic.
>>
>>
>>> That you refer to my stupidity yet fail to point out any
>>> mistake seems to be strong evidence that you are clueless.
>>
>> Sure I have pointed out your error. You are just too stupid to 
>> recognize the.
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Until you provide ALL OF THE REASONING PROVIDING
>>>>> ALL OF THE DETAILS OF EXACTLY HOW I AM WRONG
>>>>> it seems reasonable to conclude that you do not
>>>>> have any of these details and only have pure bluster.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not my job.
>>>>
>>>> You need to point to the actual logical step you think Tarski got 
>>>> wrong, not a conclusion you disagree with.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yu failure to understand what i said is not my mistake,
>>
>> I.E. your claim is that you don't understand the error pointed out to 
>> you means the error wasn't pointed out to you.
>>
> 
> You did not point any the details of any error
> the most that you did is state your opinion
> that I made some mistake somewhere. Even a bot
> as stupid as the original bot Eliza could do that.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA
> 
> 

I pointed out that your error was not to point out an actual error, but 
just disagreeing with a conclusion.

Thus, you are showing that you are just too stupid to know what you are 
talking about.