Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Re: I just fixed the loophole of the Gettier cases
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2024 20:17:15 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 55
Message-ID: <vc03qr$grkl$2@dont-email.me>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2024 03:17:15 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d235ae0db3579965e32965ac043532df";
	logging-data="552597"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19KWGGndiRevOaqTMfxdyOI"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:/AXgfSfUHCRqFHefPdCHPwhf1RY=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vbua7i$615o$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3453

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.

>>>> 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.

?- 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.

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer