Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!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 --- Truth-bearers
 ONLY
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2025 16:44:00 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <dcea3256423309576ce5cddc21201afbae10ddec@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>
 <95ca0b344ae29f6911a73c655ddbe1c7214f8519@i2pn2.org>
 <vqo4ke$1l6i0$1@dont-email.me>
 <c5b83ef1ae7f77e3ff1fe97dcb557af5380c2ddd@i2pn2.org>
 <vqo7or$1l6i0$3@dont-email.me> <vqo8bf$1lehl$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqoac7$1lvqs$1@dont-email.me> <vqp4h7$1u7ri$1@dont-email.me>
 <vr4cjs$3u6l5$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2025 20:44:02 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="341103"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vr4cjs$3u6l5$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4750
Lines: 91

On 3/15/25 1:15 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/11/2025 5:50 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-03-11 03:23:51 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 3/10/2025 9:49 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 3/10/2025 10:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/10/2025 9:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/10/25 9:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/10/2025 5:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/9/25 11:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> LP := ~True(LP)  DOES SPECIFY INFINITE RECURSION.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> WHich is irrelevent, as that isn't the statement in view, only 
>>>>>>>> what could be shown to be a meaning of the actual statement.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Liar Paradox PROPERLY FORMALIZED <is> Infinitely recursive
>>>>>>> thus semantically incorrect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But is irrelevent to your arguement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "It would then be possible to reconstruct the antinomy of the liar
>>>>>>>   in the metalanguage, by forming in the language itself a sentence"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right, the "Liar" is in the METALANGUAGE, not the LANGUAGE where 
>>>>>> the predicate is defined.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are just showing you don't understand the concept of 
>>>>>> Metalanguage.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thus anchoring his whole proof in the Liar Paradox even if
>>>>>>> you do not understand the term "metalanguage" well enough
>>>>>>> to know this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, there is a connection to the liar's paradox, and that is that 
>>>>>> he shows that the presumed existance of a Truth Predicate forces 
>>>>>> the logic system to have to resolve the liar's paradox.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> bool True(X)
>>>>> {
>>>>>    if (~unify_with_occurs_check(X))
>>>>>      return false;
>>>>>    else if (~Truth_Bearer(X))
>>>>>     return false;
>>>>>    else
>>>>>     return IsTrue(X);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> LP := ~True(LP)
>>>>> True(LP) resolves to false.
>>>>
>>>> ~True(LP) resolves to true
>>>
>>> It may seem that way if you fail to understand
>>> Clocksin & Mellish explanation of
>>>
>>> Most Prolog systems will allow you to
>>> satisfy goals like:
>>>    equal(X, X).
>>>    ?- equal(foo(Y), Y).
>>>
>>> that is, they will allow you to match a
>>> term against an uninstantiated subterm of itself.
>>>
>>> ON PAGE 3
>>> https://www.researchgate.net/ 
>>> publication/350789898_Prolog_detects_and_rejects_pathological_self_reference_in_the_Godel_sentence
>>
>> That you can quote some text but don't say anything about it supports the
>> hypthesis that you don't understand the text you quoted.
>>
> 
> I said that unify_with_occurs_check() detects
> cycles in the directed graph of the evaluation
> sequence of an expression that does explain
> everything even if it seems like I said
> blah, blah, blah to everyone not knowing the
> meaning of these words: "cycle", directed graph"
> "evaluation sequence".
> 

Except for the fact that you aren't giving it the actual x that Tarski 
creates (or the G for Godel) as expressed in the language, in part 
because it uses logic that can't be expressed in Prolog.

Sorry, all you are doing is proving that you are nothing but a stupid 
liar that doesn't have a clue about what he is talking.