Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: sci.logic Subject: Re: The key undecidable instance that I know about --- Truth-bearers ONLY Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2025 20:22:34 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 81 Message-ID: References: <3b57384a57c71e1880fe3f1df975003c1d743c07@i2pn2.org>

<9a2fbcc7a803bc91d320117f8c8e03e03799e9b3@i2pn2.org> <95ca0b344ae29f6911a73c655ddbe1c7214f8519@i2pn2.org>

MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2025 02:22:35 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="33de22785a11a76beb5897cc3eba332a"; logging-data="726815"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18wYQpTM/i0joRGpcf5Im4d" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:gK+LJ6m5XAEdgkikpfjQIuTekFA= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250315-4, 3/15/2025), Outbound message Bytes: 4603 On 3/15/2025 3:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 3/15/25 1:08 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 3/10/2025 9:49 PM, dbush wrote: >>> On 3/10/2025 10:39 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 3/10/2025 9:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 3/10/25 9:45 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 3/10/2025 5:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 3/9/25 11:39 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> LP := ~True(LP) DOES SPECIFY INFINITE RECURSION. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> WHich is irrelevent, as that isn't the statement in view, only >>>>>>> what could be shown to be a meaning of the actual statement. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The Liar Paradox PROPERLY FORMALIZED Infinitely recursive >>>>>> thus semantically incorrect. >>>>> >>>>> But is irrelevent to your arguement. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "It would then be possible to reconstruct the antinomy of the liar >>>>>> in the metalanguage, by forming in the language itself a sentence" >>>>> >>>>> Right, the "Liar" is in the METALANGUAGE, not the LANGUAGE where >>>>> the predicate is defined. >>>>> >>>>> You are just showing you don't understand the concept of Metalanguage. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thus anchoring his whole proof in the Liar Paradox even if >>>>>> you do not understand the term "metalanguage" well enough >>>>>> to know this. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, there is a connection to the liar's paradox, and that is that >>>>> he shows that the presumed existance of a Truth Predicate forces >>>>> the logic system to have to resolve the liar's paradox. >>>>> >>>> >>>> bool True(X) >>>> { >>>> if (~unify_with_occurs_check(X)) >>>> return false; >>>> else if (~Truth_Bearer(X)) >>>> return false; >>>> else >>>> return IsTrue(X); >>>> } >>>> >>>> LP := ~True(LP) >>>> True(LP) resolves to false. >>> >>> ~True(LP) resolves to true >>> LP := ~True(LP) resolves to true >>> >>> Therefore the assumption that a correct True() predicate exists is >>> proven false. >> >> When you stupidly ignore Prolog and MTT that >> both prove there is a cycle in the directed graph >> of their evaluation sequence. If you have no idea >> what "cycle", "directed graph" and "evaluation sequence" >> means then this mistake is easy to make. >> > > WHen you claim that Prolog gives answers for logic system more advanced > then it, or make unsupported claims about your FRAUD of MTT, you are > just showing your stupidity. > > Part of your problem, it seems, is that you don't understand the > limitations of Prolog, because you can't understand the logic that > Prolog can't handle, because you are just too stupid. LP := ~True(LP Try to explain in your own words what this means: LP specifies a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer