Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Re: Mathematical incompleteness has always been a misconception ---
 Tarski
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2025 15:31:26 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 57
Message-ID: <vpioff$1euhp$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vnh0sq$35mcm$1@dont-email.me> <vnndqs$kef3$1@dont-email.me>
 <vnpd96$vl84$1@dont-email.me> <vnqm3p$1apip$1@dont-email.me>
 <vnqsbh$1c5sq$1@dont-email.me> <vnsm90$1pr86$1@dont-email.me>
 <vnte6s$1tra8$1@dont-email.me> <vnv4tf$2a43e$1@dont-email.me>
 <vo0249$2eqdl$1@dont-email.me> <vo1qae$2s4cr$1@dont-email.me>
 <vo2i10$302f0$1@dont-email.me> <vo4nj4$3f6so$1@dont-email.me>
 <vo5btf$3ipo2$1@dont-email.me> <vo7ckh$q2p$1@dont-email.me>
 <vo7tdg$36ra$6@dont-email.me> <voa09t$idij$1@dont-email.me>
 <7e532aaf77653daac5ca2b70bf26d0a3bc515abf@i2pn2.org>
 <voceuj$14r1q$1@dont-email.me> <vocp21$16c4e$1@dont-email.me>
 <vof6hb$1nh1f$1@dont-email.me> <voflif$1q1mh$2@dont-email.me>
 <vohsmu$29krm$1@dont-email.me> <vp10ic$1e7iv$2@dont-email.me>
 <f249a1ab72772fbbd2fd8785493f9b91e3bb58b0@i2pn2.org>
 <vp236u$1n991$4@dont-email.me> <vp6r16$2p1if$1@dont-email.me>
 <vpb1rf$3jct4$14@dont-email.me> <vpc4ed$3sn03$1@dont-email.me>
 <vpd19c$irt$8@dont-email.me> <vphbuh$10ia3$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2025 22:31:28 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="487181fedfd21929033b992c18779cf6";
	logging-data="1538617"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/xc91EGt3264BtET+Fcyo3"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:eFYxDBTVs0SjHFUAgzBU4IpNF94=
In-Reply-To: <vphbuh$10ia3$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250224-8, 2/24/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean

On 2/24/2025 2:51 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2025-02-22 17:24:59 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 2/22/2025 3:12 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2025-02-21 23:22:23 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 2/20/2025 3:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-02-18 13:50:22 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> There is nothing like that in the following concrete example:
>>>>>> LP := ~True(LP)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In other words you are saying the Prolog is incorrect
>>>>>> to reject the Liar Paradox.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Above translated to Prolog
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)).
>>>>>> LP = not(true(LP)).
>>>>>
>>>>> According to Prolog rules LP = not(true(LP)) is permitted to fail.
>>>>> If it succeeds the operations using LP may misbehave. A memory
>>>>> leak is also possible.
>>>>>
>>>>>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
>>>>>> false
>>>>>
>>>>> This merely means that the result of unification would be that LP 
>>>>> conains
>>>>> itself. It could be a selmantically valid result but is not in the 
>>>>> scope
>>>>> of Prolog language.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It does not mean that. You are wrong.
>>>
>>> It does in the context where it was presented. More generally,
>>> unify_with_occurs_check also fails if the arguments are not
>>> unfiable. But this possibility is already excluded by their
>>> successfull unification.
>>>
>>
>> IT CANNOT POSSIBLY BE SEMANTICALLY VALID
> 
> Of course it is. Its semantics is well defined by the Prolog standard.

Go freaking read the Clocksin and Mellish.
an "infinite term" means NOT SEMANTICALLY VALID.

> Whether you like that semantics or not is irrelevant.
> 

What time is it (yes or no) ? is also NOT SEMANTICALLY VALID.

-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer