Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Re: I just fixed the loophole of the Gettier cases
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2024 22:09:50 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <dfb2ae99d9ea66545c5dde34c4a101fc090f0ebb@i2pn2.org>
References: <vb0lj5$1c1kh$1@dont-email.me> <vb1o9g$1g7lq$1@dont-email.me>
 <vb3t1j$22k1l$1@dont-email.me> <vb4aq6$2r7ok$1@dont-email.me>
 <vb6p9v$3aebo$1@dont-email.me> <vb70k8$3b4ub$2@dont-email.me>
 <vbepsc$q8v6$1@dont-email.me> <vbes94$punj$12@dont-email.me>
 <24f85bcd40f57685aab93d45f15501178e526d0f@i2pn2.org>
 <vbh3td$1a0lq$1@dont-email.me> <vbhkej$1c7u5$4@dont-email.me>
 <2980c2ea93dacce585730f55f07d76e44769e1d4@i2pn2.org>
 <vbmsbj$2dpff$3@dont-email.me>
 <4a9a15cff1a1a9f24e19806bbb48a486b9608e9a@i2pn2.org>
 <vbp3bf$2ssfq$1@dont-email.me> <vbph8r$2vfau$3@dont-email.me>
 <vbrfeu$3flln$1@dont-email.me> <vbs1jt$3im2p$10@dont-email.me>
 <vbua7i$615o$1@dont-email.me> <vc03qr$grkl$2@dont-email.me>
 <vc0rva$p0p3$1@dont-email.me> <vc4v2j$1ma6t$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2024 02:09:50 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2097785"; 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: <vc4v2j$1ma6t$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5060
Lines: 101

On 9/14/24 5:26 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/13/2024 3:09 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-09-13 01:17:15 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 9/12/2024 3:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-09-11 12:14:53 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/11/2024 2:05 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-09-10 13:23:39 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They all have negation as failure, the key element
>>>>>>> required to reject self-contradictory expressions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The not operator of Prolog is not a part of Horn clause system. It is
>>>>>> not the same as the not operator of ordinary logic. Therefore one 
>>>>>> nust
>>>>>> be careful with its use and interpretation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have not defined what you mean with "reject" and how that relates
>>>>>> to the behaviour of Prolog programs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negation_as_failure
>>>>> The failure to prove X from Facts and Rules
>>>>> means that X is untrue yet not necessarily false.
>>>>>
>>>>> The failure to prove X or ~X from Facts and Rules
>>>>> means that X is untrue and unfalse, thus not a
>>>>> truth bearer.
>>>>
>>>> X may represent a real world claim that is either true or false but
>>>> cannot be determined either way with Prolog rules.
>>>>
>>>
>>> When a Prolog Fact is specified that cats are animals
>>> then we can know by Prolog Facts that cats are animals.
>>
>> We know that even if no Prolog fact about that is specified.
>>
> 
> Not one single being in the universe understood
> that "cats are animals" was anything but pure gibberish
> until this was specified.

Nope, because you don't understand how linguistics were developed.

Sorry, you are just proving your stupidity.

The words had there meaning long before "logic" was invented.

> 
> Prolog is like a 100% empty mind until we tell it
> some facts it literally knows nothing.
> 
> When we tell it "cats are animals" is a fact it knows
> literally nothing else.
> 
> The entire verbal model of the actual world is built
> this same way.
> 
> "The Earth is spherical" makes exactly as much sense
> as "dgfjlok ergkoi rti932rm 45 njedfww" until specified
> otherwise.

Right, but is a LIE, as the Earth isn't "Sphreical", only "Spheroid" or 
to be more correct an Oblate Spheroid.

Of course, you don't understand that distinction, because you don't 
understand that when talking about the physical universe, "Truth" in the 
logical sense doesn't actually fully apply, but only approximation models.

> 
>>>>>>> x = "this sentence is not true
>>>>>>> if ~True(L,x) & ~True(L,~x) "x is rejected as invalid input"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What connection that has to Prolog?
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, you still have not defined what you mean with "reject" and how
>>>> that relates to the behaviour of Prolog programs, and you have not
>>>> answered the last question.
>>
>>> I have defined this at least 100 times.
>>
>> As you didn't point to even one such definitions I think you have not.
>>
>>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)).
>>> LP = not(true(LP)).
>>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
>>> false.
>>>
>>> The last line that returns false rejects LP.
>>
>> No, it does not reject, it just answers the question on the second 
>> last line.
>> Another answer about LP is on the third last line and there is no 
>> rejection
>> there.
>>
> 
>