Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: sci.logic Subject: Re: The key undecidable instance that I know about Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2025 18:45:12 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: References: <3b57384a57c71e1880fe3f1df975003c1d743c07@i2pn2.org>

<9a2fbcc7a803bc91d320117f8c8e03e03799e9b3@i2pn2.org> <7cd6d8a1477fce2ef564f74f49ebbff8074ad11b@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2025 22:45:12 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="3793041"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 On 3/10/25 11:51 AM, olcott wrote: > On 3/10/2025 6:04 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 3/9/25 11:39 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 3/9/2025 8:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 3/9/25 6:28 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 3/9/2025 4:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 3/9/25 4:08 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 3/9/2025 2:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/9/25 1:15 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> Is the Liar Paradox True or False? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> LP := ~True(LP) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)). >>>>>>>>> LP = not(true(LP)). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). >>>>>>>>> false. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Its infinitely recursive structure makes it neither true nor >>>>>>>>> false. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The liar's paradox isn't an "undecidable" instance, as >>>>>>>> "undecidable" is about a problem that has a true or false answer >>>>>>>> that can not be computed for every case. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Tarski thought that is was undecidable and anchored his >>>>>>> whole proof in it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> Note, he says to construct the antinomy of the liar in the >>>>>> METALANGUAGE representing the statement x in the LANGUAGE. Thus >>>>>> "x" is *NOT* the liar, but something that with the additional >>>>>> information of the metalanguage can be reduced to it. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "the antinomy of the liar in the metalanguage" >>>>> >>>>> {the antinomy of the liar in the metalanguage} >>>> >>>> So, you admit you don't understand what that means? >>>> >>>> Do you understand the differene between the metalanguage and the >>>> language? >>>> >>>> You do understand that the whole proof is about the Truth Predicate >>>> in the LANGUAGE, not the Metalanguage. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> And my understanding of his metalanguage that I have >>>>> had for several years and just refreshed from the >>>>> original source material does seem to prove that >>>>> this does mean that Tarski did anchor his whole >>>>> proof in the antinomy of the liar. >>>> >>>> And clearly you don't understand the meaning of the metalanguage. >>>> >>>> Note, the antinomy of the liar in the metalanguage is a result that >>>> comes from the actual statement "x", that is in the language gets >>>> manipulated based on new concepts from the metalanguage allowing it >>>> to be simplifed. >>>> >>> >>> That does not really show any depth of understanding. >>> You might have greater depth, yet did not show it yet. >> >> No, your reply, by not addressing *ANY* of >> >>> >>>> Your ignorance of how that is done is NOT an error on Tarski's part, >>>> just stupidity on yours. >>>> >>> >>> Yet you never said how it should be done, thus I >>> have no way to tell what you say is not pure bluster. >>> >> >> Maybe because what you want to define can't be. >> >> Tarski shows how to derive that part in the earlier work. It is clear >> that you just don't have the brains to understand that discussion, and >> it isn't my job to educate you on that, particularly when you have >> declared that you idea of logic fundamentally disagrees with the >> actual rules of logic, so you fundamentally don't understand how to >> use logic. >> >> >>> That you refer to my stupidity yet fail to point out any >>> mistake seems to be strong evidence that you are clueless. >> >> Sure I have pointed out your error. You are just too stupid to >> recognize the. >> >>> >>>>> >>>>> Until you provide ALL OF THE REASONING PROVIDING >>>>> ALL OF THE DETAILS OF EXACTLY HOW I AM WRONG >>>>> it seems reasonable to conclude that you do not >>>>> have any of these details and only have pure bluster. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Not my job. >>>> >>>> You need to point to the actual logical step you think Tarski got >>>> wrong, not a conclusion you disagree with. >>>> >>> >>> Yu failure to understand what i said is not my mistake, >> >> I.E. your claim is that you don't understand the error pointed out to >> you means the error wasn't pointed out to you. >> > > You did not point any the details of any error > the most that you did is state your opinion > that I made some mistake somewhere. Even a bot > as stupid as the original bot Eliza could do that. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA > > I pointed out that your error was not to point out an actual error, but just disagreeing with a conclusion. Thus, you are showing that you are just too stupid to know what you are talking about.