Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<vbkcfr$1v1fg$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!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, 8 Sep 2024 17:31:23 +0300 Organization: - Lines: 41 Message-ID: <vbkcfr$1v1fg$1@dont-email.me> References: <vavohi$140m1$1@dont-email.me> <vb1o2v$1gbmn$1@dont-email.me> <vb1r8k$1g7lq$3@dont-email.me> <vb3quu$1t290$1@dont-email.me> <vb4cv3$2r7ok$3@dont-email.me> <vb6ouc$3achu$1@dont-email.me> <vb70ah$3b4ub$1@dont-email.me> <vbeqjh$qc12$1@dont-email.me> <vbes5c$punj$11@dont-email.me> <vbh37k$19rlv$1@dont-email.me> <vbhj5c$1c7u5$2@dont-email.me> <vbjo7m$1s9qb$1@dont-email.me> <vbk688$1u1js$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2024 16:31:24 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="dd9d2cc639f13179d78eef7a9cb98700"; logging-data="2065904"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/z+fEpfdbNgBQ/2wvRiLLz" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:91JwC72Q6DIY1nocvs5fE2EFvY0= Bytes: 2467 On 2024-09-08 12:44:56 +0000, olcott said: > On 9/8/2024 3:45 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-09-07 13:06:52 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 9/7/2024 3:35 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2024-09-06 12:22:04 +0000, olcott said: >>>>> >>>>> The fundamental architectural overview of all Prolog implementations >>>>> is the same True(x) means X is derived by applying Rules (AKA truth >>>>> preserving operations) to Facts. >>>> >>>> The details are permitted to differ. >>>> >>> >>> Instead of using any single order of logic we simultaneously >>> represent an arbitrary number of orders of logic in a type >>> hierarchy knowledge ontology. >> >> The type system of Prolog is different. >> > > Yes I know that. The architecture of Prolog is used > the implementation details are scrapped. > > ?- LP = not(true(LP)). > LP = not(true(LP)). > ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). > false. // LP is rejected as cyclic > > Even with Prolog just the way it is it is not as stupid > as Tarski's system that doesn't know to reject the Liar > Paradox. > > https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_247_248.pdf Most Prolog implementations don't reject L = not(ture(LP)). -- Mikko