Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Re: This is how I overturn the Tarski Undefinability theorem
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2024 15:52:47 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 55
Message-ID: <vb1o2v$1gbmn$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vavohi$140m1$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2024 14:52:48 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="18d0e0b6b333a72635c75fefa1caea58";
	logging-data="1584855"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19gkfznMaUlnizt2rqoXPu6"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:M5vVNb2PTtH1NdObSSJdCsBSAac=
Bytes: 2796

On 2024-08-31 18:48:18 +0000, olcott said:

> *This is how I overturn the Tarski Undefinability theorem*
> An analytic expression of language is any expression of formal or 
> natural language that can be proven true or false entirely on the basis 
> of a connection to its semantic meaning in this same language.
> 
> This connection must be through a sequence of truth preserving 
> operations from expression x of language L to meaning M in L. A lack of 
> such connection from x or ~x in L is construed as x is not a truth 
> bearer in L.
> 
> 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
> 
> Formalized as:
> x ∉ True if and only if p
> where the symbol 'p' represents the whole sentence x
> https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf
> 
> *Formalized as Prolog*
> ?- LP = not(true(LP)).
> LP = not(true(LP)).

According to Prolog semantics "false" would also be a correct
response.

> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
> false.

To the extend Prolog formalizes anything, that only formalizes
the condept of self-reference. I does not say anything about
int.

> When formalized as Prolog unify_with_occurs_check()
> detects a cycle in the directed graph of the evaluation
> sequence proving the LP is not a truth bearer.

Prolog does not say anything about truth-bearers.

> The purpose of this work was to show that algorithmic
> undecidability is a misconception providing more details
> than Wittgenstein's rebuttal of Gödel.

Which it didn't show.

> https://www.liarparadox.org/Wittgenstein.pdf

-- 
Mikko