Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

The bigger the theory the better.


devel / comp.theory / Re: Is this correct Prolog?

SubjectAuthor
* Is this correct Prolog?olcott
+* Is this correct Prolog?Richard Damon
|+* Is this correct Prolog?olcott
||`* Is this correct Prolog?Richard Damon
|| `* Is this correct Prolog?olcott
||  `* Is this correct Prolog?Richard Damon
||   `* Is this correct Prolog?olcott
||    `* Is this correct Prolog?Richard Damon
||     `* Is this correct Prolog?olcott
||      +* Is this correct Prolog?Jeff Barnett
||      |+* Is this correct Prolog?olcott
||      ||`- Is this correct Prolog?Richard Damon
||      |`* Is this correct Prolog?Mr Flibble
||      | +- Is this correct Prolog?polcott
||      | +- Is this correct Prolog?Richard Damon
||      | `- Is this correct Prolog?Jeff Barnett
||      +* Is this correct Prolog?Richard Damon
||      |`* Is this correct Prolog?olcott
||      | `- Is this correct Prolog?Richard Damon
||      `* Is this correct Prolog?olcott
||       `* Is this correct Prolog?Richard Damon
||        `* Is this correct Prolog?olcott
||         `- Is this correct Prolog?Richard Damon
|`* Is this correct Prolog?olcott
| `* Is this correct Prolog?André G. Isaak
|  `* Is this correct Prolog?olcott
|   `* Is this correct Prolog?André G. Isaak
|    `* Is this correct Prolog?olcott
|     `* Is this correct Prolog?André G. Isaak
|      +* Is this correct Prolog?polcott
|      |`* Is this correct Prolog?André G. Isaak
|      | `* Is this correct Prolog?olcott
|      |  `- Is this correct Prolog?André G. Isaak
|      `* Is this correct Prolog?olcott
|       `* Is this correct Prolog?André G. Isaak
|        `* Is this correct Prolog?olcott
|         `* Is this correct Prolog?Mr Flibble
|          `* Is this correct Prolog?olcott
|           `* Is this correct Prolog?André G. Isaak
|            `* Is this correct Prolog?olcott
|             +- Is this correct Prolog?Richard Damon
|             `* Is this correct Prolog?André G. Isaak
|              +* Is this correct Prolog?olcott
|              |`* Is this correct Prolog?André G. Isaak
|              | `* Is this correct Prolog?olcott
|              |  +* Is this correct Prolog?André G. Isaak
|              |  |`* Is this correct Prolog?olcott
|              |  | `* Is this correct Prolog?André G. Isaak
|              |  |  `* Is this correct Prolog?olcott
|              |  |   +* Is this correct Prolog?André G. Isaak
|              |  |   |+* Is this correct Prolog?olcott
|              |  |   ||+* Is this correct Prolog?Richard Damon
|              |  |   |||`* Is this correct Prolog?olcott
|              |  |   ||| `* Is this correct Prolog?Richard Damon
|              |  |   |||  +- Is this correct Prolog?André G. Isaak
|              |  |   |||  `* Is this correct Prolog?olcott
|              |  |   |||   `* Is this correct Prolog?Richard Damon
|              |  |   |||    `* Is this correct Prolog?olcott
|              |  |   |||     `* Is this correct Prolog?Richard Damon
|              |  |   |||      `* Is this correct Prolog?olcott
|              |  |   |||       +- Is this correct Prolog?André G. Isaak
|              |  |   |||       `* Is this correct Prolog?Richard Damon
|              |  |   |||        `* Is this correct Prolog?olcott
|              |  |   |||         +- Is this correct Prolog?André G. Isaak
|              |  |   |||         `* Is this correct Prolog?Richard Damon
|              |  |   |||          `* Is this correct Prolog?olcott
|              |  |   |||           `- Is this correct Prolog?Richard Damon
|              |  |   ||`* Is this correct Prolog?André G. Isaak
|              |  |   || +* Is this correct Prolog?olcott
|              |  |   || |`* Is this correct Prolog?André G. Isaak
|              |  |   || | +* _Is_this_correct_Prolog?_[_André_is_proven_olcott
|              |  |   || | |`* _Is_this_correct_Prolog?_[_André_is_proven_André G. Isaak
|              |  |   || | | `* _Is_this_correct_Prolog?_[_André_is_proven_olcott
|              |  |   || | |  `- _Is_this_correct_Prolog?_[_André_is_proven_André G. Isaak
|              |  |   || | `* _Is_this_correct_Prolog?_[_André_is_proven_to_beDennis Bush
|              |  |   || |  `- _Is_this_correct_Prolog?_[_André_is_proven_olcott
|              |  |   || `* _Is_this_correct_Prolog?_[_André_is_proven_olcott
|              |  |   ||  `* _Is_this_correct_Prolog?_[_André_is_proven_Richard Damon
|              |  |   ||   `- _Is_this_correct_Prolog?_[_André_is_proven_olcott
|              |  |   |`- Is this correct Prolog?olcott
|              |  |   `- Is this correct Prolog?Richard Damon
|              |  `- Is this correct Prolog?Richard Damon
|              `* Is this correct Prolog?Jeff Barnett
|               +- Is this correct Prolog?André G. Isaak
|               `* Is this correct Prolog?olcott
|                `* Is this correct Prolog?Richard Damon
|                 `- Is this correct Prolog?olcott
+* Is this correct Prolog?olcott
|`* Is this correct Prolog?Richard Damon
| `* Is this correct Prolog?olcott
|  `* Is this correct Prolog?Richard Damon
|   `* Is this correct Prolog?olcott
|    `- Is this correct Prolog?Richard Damon
+* Is this correct Prolog?olcott
|`* Is this correct Prolog?Aleksy Grabowski
| `* Is this correct Prolog?olcott
|  `* Is this correct Prolog?Aleksy Grabowski
|   `* Is this correct Prolog?olcott
|    `* Is this correct Prolog?Aleksy Grabowski
|     `* Is this correct Prolog?olcott
|      +* Is this correct Prolog?Aleksy Grabowski
|      `* Is this correct Prolog?Jeff Barnett
`* Is this correct Prolog?olcott

Pages:12345678
Re: Is this correct Prolog?

<d9KdnQdt_bnfTPP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=31334&group=comp.theory#31334

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.lang.prolog comp.ai.philosophy
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!1.us.feeder.erje.net!3.us.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 01 May 2022 13:28:18 -0500
Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 13:28:16 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.1
Subject: Re: Is this correct Prolog?
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.lang.prolog,comp.ai.philosophy
References: <qcOdndRse-RjQ_H_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<I4lbK.452483$t2Bb.96330@fx98.iad>
<UOGdnc__htYie_D_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4kp78$vuc$1@dont-email.me>
<EKKdnasbsInXjPP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4l65c$bqr$1@dont-email.me>
<lI-dnepDd-0n7PP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4m2b2$kmn$1@dont-email.me>
<AuqdnTWXMZYFLfP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t4mc2l$2q2$2@dont-email.me>
<FdSdnWijBKlSIfP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<20220501185933.000045ad@reddwarf.jmc>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <20220501185933.000045ad@reddwarf.jmc>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <d9KdnQdt_bnfTPP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 41
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-8mWIWvK655cOFpaUHaQv5/+vjJc+a8978XxkeLf12HMb8XLex7We5E4uk9nGeQf3I90ts5haNFz7gc8!EbZk0v3hByRiFTIvWXChSFKU+8aXjHAbL1er6Uf2EzTZVVfnNuPVoih6D3CTqYZzKlZvu9xMUYU=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 2943
 by: olcott - Sun, 1 May 2022 18:28 UTC

On 5/1/2022 12:59 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sun, 1 May 2022 12:01:01 -0500
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/1/2022 11:21 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-05-01 10:08, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> Why are you making the same reply twice under two different
>>> handles? A single reply should suffice.
>>>
>>> André
>>>
>>
>> I wanted Flibble to see what I said. He may have me on Plonk
>
> You are not in my kill file: I don't always reply to what you say
> because I either agree with what you are saying or the point is
> uninteresting to me.
>
> /Flibble
>

I do think that your idea of "category error" is a brilliant new insight
into pathological self-reference problems such as:
(1) The Halting Problem proofs
(2) Gödel's 1930 Incompleteness
(3) The 1936 Undefinability theorem

It very succinctly sums up the entire gist of the semantic error in all
of these cases. When it is summed up so effectively it becomes much
easier to see exactly what is going on. I have said that it is a
semantic error, you pointed out exactly what kind of semantic error.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Is this correct Prolog?

<t4mjq0$7nf$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=31336&group=comp.theory#31336

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: agis...@gm.invalid (André G. Isaak)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Is this correct Prolog?
Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 12:33:35 -0600
Organization: Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <t4mjq0$7nf$1@dont-email.me>
References: <qcOdndRse-RjQ_H_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<I4lbK.452483$t2Bb.96330@fx98.iad>
<UOGdnc__htYie_D_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4kp78$vuc$1@dont-email.me>
<EKKdnasbsInXjPP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4l65c$bqr$1@dont-email.me>
<lI-dnepDd-0n7PP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4m2b2$kmn$1@dont-email.me>
<AuqdnTWXMZYFLfP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t4mc2l$2q2$2@dont-email.me>
<FdSdnWijBKlSIfP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<20220501185933.000045ad@reddwarf.jmc>
<d9KdnQdt_bnfTPP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 18:33:36 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="9aade08aa0eb94cd9b9879b12c2d9c29";
logging-data="7919"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+K31zDVzQe3/rc1WsPKwUD"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:WKu29eBiyGYSbO9EKQ07g0kJV5U=
In-Reply-To: <d9KdnQdt_bnfTPP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: André G. Isaak - Sun, 1 May 2022 18:33 UTC

On 2022-05-01 12:28, olcott wrote:
> On 5/1/2022 12:59 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On Sun, 1 May 2022 12:01:01 -0500
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/1/2022 11:21 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2022-05-01 10:08, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> Why are you making the same reply twice under two different
>>>> handles? A single reply should suffice.
>>>>
>>>> André
>>>
>>> I wanted Flibble to see what I said. He may have me on Plonk
>> You are not in my kill file: I don't always reply to what you say
>> because I either agree with what you are saying or the point is
>> uninteresting to me.
>>
>> /Flibble
>>
>
> I do think that your idea of "category error" is a brilliant new insight
> into pathological self-reference problems such as:
> (1) The Halting Problem proofs
> (2) Gödel's 1930 Incompleteness
> (3) The 1936 Undefinability theorem
>
> It very succinctly sums up the entire gist of the semantic error in all
> of these cases. When it is summed up so effectively it becomes much
> easier to see exactly what is going on. I have said that it is a
> semantic error, you pointed out exactly what kind of semantic error.

So which categories are you claiming are involved? Claiming something is
a 'category error' means nothing if you don't specify the actual
categories involved.

André

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.

Re: Is this correct Prolog?

<hYKdnb4ZyYB0RfP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=31338&group=comp.theory#31338

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy comp.lang.prolog
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 01 May 2022 14:00:57 -0500
Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 14:00:56 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.1
Subject: Re: Is this correct Prolog?
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.lang.prolog
References: <qcOdndRse-RjQ_H_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<I4lbK.452483$t2Bb.96330@fx98.iad>
<UOGdnc__htYie_D_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4kp78$vuc$1@dont-email.me>
<EKKdnasbsInXjPP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4l65c$bqr$1@dont-email.me>
<lI-dnepDd-0n7PP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4m2b2$kmn$1@dont-email.me>
<AuqdnTWXMZYFLfP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t4mc2l$2q2$2@dont-email.me>
<FdSdnWijBKlSIfP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<20220501185933.000045ad@reddwarf.jmc>
<d9KdnQdt_bnfTPP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4mjq0$7nf$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <t4mjq0$7nf$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <hYKdnb4ZyYB0RfP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 62
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-wEOGexVS+WMXhB6RdL3bVJ92RK5glgbQ0DMFCvQf0bLcBO7U3qJj+a0xYtQQFZejBb0+M1Zci/IOoT8!/zoaSYpHVqFYovZul+2lC+fHdwXgsVPV+Qn/9pWaiK/qJ227m+GbChVY2arnRSPPOOxGli9m4Rw=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 3934
 by: olcott - Sun, 1 May 2022 19:00 UTC

On 5/1/2022 1:33 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-05-01 12:28, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/1/2022 12:59 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Sun, 1 May 2022 12:01:01 -0500
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/1/2022 11:21 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-05-01 10:08, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why are you making the same reply twice under two different
>>>>> handles? A single reply should suffice.
>>>>>
>>>>> André
>>>>
>>>> I wanted Flibble to see what I said. He may have me on Plonk
>>> You are not in my kill file: I don't always reply to what you say
>>> because I either agree with what you are saying or the point is
>>> uninteresting to me.
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>
>> I do think that your idea of "category error" is a brilliant new
>> insight into pathological self-reference problems such as:
>> (1) The Halting Problem proofs
>> (2) Gödel's 1930 Incompleteness
>> (3) The 1936 Undefinability theorem
>>
>> It very succinctly sums up the entire gist of the semantic error in
>> all of these cases. When it is summed up so effectively it becomes
>> much easier to see exactly what is going on. I have said that it is a
>> semantic error, you pointed out exactly what kind of semantic error.
>
> So which categories are you claiming are involved? Claiming something is
> a 'category error' means nothing if you don't specify the actual
> categories involved.
>
> André
>

My original thinking was that (1) and (2) and the Liar Paradox all
demonstrate the exact same error. I only have considered (3) in recent
years, prior to that I never heard of (3).

The category error would be that none of them is in the category of
truth bearers. For Gödel's G and Tarski's p it would mean that the
category error is that G and p are not logic sentences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_(mathematical_logic)

https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf

My current thinking on (1) is that a TM is smart enough to see this
issue and report on it.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Is this correct Prolog?

<i3BbK.379464$Gojc.108205@fx99.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=31342&group=comp.theory#31342

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy comp.lang.prolog
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!news.uzoreto.com!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!peer02.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx99.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.1
Subject: Re: Is this correct Prolog?
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.lang.prolog
References: <qcOdndRse-RjQ_H_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<I4lbK.452483$t2Bb.96330@fx98.iad>
<UOGdnc__htYie_D_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4kp78$vuc$1@dont-email.me>
<EKKdnasbsInXjPP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4l65c$bqr$1@dont-email.me>
<lI-dnepDd-0n7PP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4m2b2$kmn$1@dont-email.me>
<AuqdnTWXMZYFLfP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t4mc2l$2q2$2@dont-email.me>
<FdSdnWijBKlSIfP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<20220501185933.000045ad@reddwarf.jmc>
<d9KdnQdt_bnfTPP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4mjq0$7nf$1@dont-email.me>
<hYKdnb4ZyYB0RfP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <hYKdnb4ZyYB0RfP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 64
Message-ID: <i3BbK.379464$Gojc.108205@fx99.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 15:19:44 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 3993
 by: Richard Damon - Sun, 1 May 2022 19:19 UTC

On 5/1/22 3:00 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/1/2022 1:33 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2022-05-01 12:28, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/1/2022 12:59 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 1 May 2022 12:01:01 -0500
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/1/2022 11:21 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-05-01 10:08, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why are you making the same reply twice under two different
>>>>>> handles? A single reply should suffice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> André
>>>>>
>>>>> I wanted Flibble to see what I said. He may have me on Plonk
>>>> You are not in my kill file: I don't always reply to what you say
>>>> because I either agree with what you are saying or the point is
>>>> uninteresting to me.
>>>>
>>>> /Flibble
>>>>
>>>
>>> I do think that your idea of "category error" is a brilliant new
>>> insight into pathological self-reference problems such as:
>>> (1) The Halting Problem proofs
>>> (2) Gödel's 1930 Incompleteness
>>> (3) The 1936 Undefinability theorem
>>>
>>> It very succinctly sums up the entire gist of the semantic error in
>>> all of these cases. When it is summed up so effectively it becomes
>>> much easier to see exactly what is going on. I have said that it is a
>>> semantic error, you pointed out exactly what kind of semantic error.
>>
>> So which categories are you claiming are involved? Claiming something
>> is a 'category error' means nothing if you don't specify the actual
>> categories involved.
>>
>> André
>>
>
> My original thinking was that (1) and (2) and the Liar Paradox all
> demonstrate the exact same error. I only have considered (3) in recent
> years, prior to that I never heard of (3).
>
> The category error would be that none of them is in the category of
> truth bearers. For Gödel's G and Tarski's p it would mean that the
> category error is that G and p are not logic sentences.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_(mathematical_logic)
>
> https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf
>
> My current thinking on (1) is that a TM is smart enough to see this
> issue and report on it.
>

Well, for Godel's G, since it is just that a statement that some
statement x is provable, and the provability of a statement is ALWAYS a
Truth Bearer, as you can't prove a non-sense sentence, so provable(x)
would be false is x is not a valid statement, G is by definition a Truth
Bearer.

Re: Is this correct Prolog?

<t4mmmg$t4u$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=31344&group=comp.theory#31344

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: agis...@gm.invalid (André G. Isaak)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Is this correct Prolog?
Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 13:22:56 -0600
Organization: Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <t4mmmg$t4u$1@dont-email.me>
References: <qcOdndRse-RjQ_H_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<I4lbK.452483$t2Bb.96330@fx98.iad>
<UOGdnc__htYie_D_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4kp78$vuc$1@dont-email.me>
<EKKdnasbsInXjPP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4l65c$bqr$1@dont-email.me>
<lI-dnepDd-0n7PP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4m2b2$kmn$1@dont-email.me>
<AuqdnTWXMZYFLfP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t4mc2l$2q2$2@dont-email.me>
<FdSdnWijBKlSIfP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<20220501185933.000045ad@reddwarf.jmc>
<d9KdnQdt_bnfTPP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4mjq0$7nf$1@dont-email.me>
<hYKdnb4ZyYB0RfP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 19:22:56 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="9aade08aa0eb94cd9b9879b12c2d9c29";
logging-data="29854"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+miyOpjLxx7f3L7m3QBv4q"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:hVgnCwSBQUd+4Gg5eiYcxVzjtFY=
In-Reply-To: <hYKdnb4ZyYB0RfP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: André G. Isaak - Sun, 1 May 2022 19:22 UTC

On 2022-05-01 13:00, olcott wrote:
> On 5/1/2022 1:33 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:

>> So which categories are you claiming are involved? Claiming something
>> is a 'category error' means nothing if you don't specify the actual
>> categories involved.
>>
>> André
>>
>
> My original thinking was that (1) and (2) and the Liar Paradox all
> demonstrate the exact same error. I only have considered (3) in recent
> years, prior to that I never heard of (3).
>
> The category error would be that none of them is in the category of
> truth bearers. For Gödel's G and Tarski's p it would mean that the
> category error is that G and p are not logic sentences.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_(mathematical_logic)

And how can you possibly justify your claim that Gödel's G is not a
truth bearer?

Gödels G asserts that a specific polynomial equation has a solution.

Since every polynomial equation either has a solution or doesn't have
one, G *must* either be true or false which means it *must* be a truth
bearer.

André

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.

Re: Is this correct Prolog?

<APOdndfNnIH7ffP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=31348&group=comp.theory#31348

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy comp.lang.prolog
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!1.us.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 01 May 2022 14:32:54 -0500
Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 14:32:53 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.1
Subject: Re: Is this correct Prolog?
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.lang.prolog
References: <qcOdndRse-RjQ_H_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<I4lbK.452483$t2Bb.96330@fx98.iad>
<UOGdnc__htYie_D_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4kp78$vuc$1@dont-email.me>
<EKKdnasbsInXjPP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4l65c$bqr$1@dont-email.me>
<lI-dnepDd-0n7PP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4m2b2$kmn$1@dont-email.me>
<AuqdnTWXMZYFLfP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t4mc2l$2q2$2@dont-email.me>
<FdSdnWijBKlSIfP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<20220501185933.000045ad@reddwarf.jmc>
<d9KdnQdt_bnfTPP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4mjq0$7nf$1@dont-email.me>
<hYKdnb4ZyYB0RfP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4mmmg$t4u$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <t4mmmg$t4u$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <APOdndfNnIH7ffP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 56
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-LDTqngmBoZs8tanCru4XutsEnJ+/dI96AuqOcArbwgXgDBLFear5cXdLoN0fArYHo2PhysyG0mua4Ts!+Kr+Dymu9h+sGR3r0R68AyHS6r4rXI6cE443uN6tATJqASMNnomAhFOs6/LhjpmavOmjZJN2HeA=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 3593
 by: olcott - Sun, 1 May 2022 19:32 UTC

On 5/1/2022 2:22 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-05-01 13:00, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/1/2022 1:33 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>
>>> So which categories are you claiming are involved? Claiming something
>>> is a 'category error' means nothing if you don't specify the actual
>>> categories involved.
>>>
>>> André
>>>
>>
>> My original thinking was that (1) and (2) and the Liar Paradox all
>> demonstrate the exact same error. I only have considered (3) in recent
>> years, prior to that I never heard of (3).
>>
>> The category error would be that none of them is in the category of
>> truth bearers. For Gödel's G and Tarski's p it would mean that the
>> category error is that G and p are not logic sentences.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_(mathematical_logic)
>
> And how can you possibly justify your claim that Gödel's G is not a
> truth bearer?
>

Do I have to say the same thing 500 times before you bother to notice
that I said it once?

14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
undecidability proof

Therefore LP ↔ ~True(LP) can be used for a similar undecidability proof,
and LP ↔ ~True(LP) is clearly semantically ill-formed.

?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).

?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
false. // false means semantically ill-formed.

> Gödels G asserts that a specific polynomial equation has a solution.
>
> Since every polynomial equation either has a solution or doesn't have
> one, G *must* either be true or false which means it *must* be a truth
> bearer.
>
> André
>

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Is this correct Prolog?

<t4mnu6$96k$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=31352&group=comp.theory#31352

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy comp.lang.prolog
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: agis...@gm.invalid (André G. Isaak)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.lang.prolog
Subject: Re: Is this correct Prolog?
Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 13:44:05 -0600
Organization: Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism
Lines: 70
Message-ID: <t4mnu6$96k$1@dont-email.me>
References: <qcOdndRse-RjQ_H_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<I4lbK.452483$t2Bb.96330@fx98.iad>
<UOGdnc__htYie_D_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4kp78$vuc$1@dont-email.me>
<EKKdnasbsInXjPP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4l65c$bqr$1@dont-email.me>
<lI-dnepDd-0n7PP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4m2b2$kmn$1@dont-email.me>
<AuqdnTWXMZYFLfP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t4mc2l$2q2$2@dont-email.me>
<FdSdnWijBKlSIfP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<20220501185933.000045ad@reddwarf.jmc>
<d9KdnQdt_bnfTPP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4mjq0$7nf$1@dont-email.me>
<hYKdnb4ZyYB0RfP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4mmmg$t4u$1@dont-email.me>
<APOdndfNnIH7ffP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 19:44:06 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="9aade08aa0eb94cd9b9879b12c2d9c29";
logging-data="9428"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/e4Xh0ts1ngi/NUSoxSaPz"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:mtyBIeozA+HbZhkVsx6d2LvicRE=
In-Reply-To: <APOdndfNnIH7ffP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: André G. Isaak - Sun, 1 May 2022 19:44 UTC

On 2022-05-01 13:32, olcott wrote:
> On 5/1/2022 2:22 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2022-05-01 13:00, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/1/2022 1:33 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>
>>>> So which categories are you claiming are involved? Claiming
>>>> something is a 'category error' means nothing if you don't specify
>>>> the actual categories involved.
>>>>
>>>> André
>>>>
>>>
>>> My original thinking was that (1) and (2) and the Liar Paradox all
>>> demonstrate the exact same error. I only have considered (3) in
>>> recent years, prior to that I never heard of (3).
>>>
>>> The category error would be that none of them is in the category of
>>> truth bearers. For Gödel's G and Tarski's p it would mean that the
>>> category error is that G and p are not logic sentences.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_(mathematical_logic)
>>
>> And how can you possibly justify your claim that Gödel's G is not a
>> truth bearer?
>>
>
> Do I have to say the same thing 500 times before you bother to notice
> that I said it once?
>
> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
> undecidability proof
>
> Therefore LP ↔ ~True(LP) can be used for a similar undecidability proof,
> and LP ↔ ~True(LP) is clearly semantically ill-formed.
>
> ?- LP = not(true(LP)).
> LP = not(true(LP)).
>
> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
> false. // false means semantically ill-formed.

And what does any of the above have to do with what I state below?
That's your faulty attempt at expressing The Liar in Prolog, which has
nothing to do with Gödel's G. G has *a relationship* to The Liar, but G
is *very* different from The Liar in crucial ways.

>
>> Gödels G asserts that a specific polynomial equation has a solution.

This is the part you don't seem to get. Gödel's G does *not* assert its
own unprovability. It asserts that a specific polynomial equation has a
solution.

That's very different from The Liar which asserts its own falsity.

Gödel's theorem constructs a G such that it can be demonstrated that the
polynomial which G asserts has a solution can only have a solution in
cases where it cannot be proven that that polynomial has a solution.

There is no self-reference involved. G asserts nothing about itself.

More importantly, the polynomial in question *must* either have a
solution or not. This means G *must* either be true or false, meaning G
*must* be a truth-bearer.

André

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.

Re: Is this correct Prolog?

<GYmdnUXY8oBkfvP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=31354&group=comp.theory#31354

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy comp.lang.prolog
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!ecngs!feeder2.ecngs.de!178.20.174.213.MISMATCH!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 01 May 2022 14:48:09 -0500
Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 14:48:07 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.1
Subject: Re: Is this correct Prolog?
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.lang.prolog
References: <qcOdndRse-RjQ_H_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<I4lbK.452483$t2Bb.96330@fx98.iad>
<UOGdnc__htYie_D_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4kp78$vuc$1@dont-email.me>
<EKKdnasbsInXjPP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4l65c$bqr$1@dont-email.me>
<lI-dnepDd-0n7PP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4m2b2$kmn$1@dont-email.me>
<AuqdnTWXMZYFLfP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t4mc2l$2q2$2@dont-email.me>
<FdSdnWijBKlSIfP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<20220501185933.000045ad@reddwarf.jmc>
<d9KdnQdt_bnfTPP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4mjq0$7nf$1@dont-email.me>
<hYKdnb4ZyYB0RfP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4mmmg$t4u$1@dont-email.me>
<APOdndfNnIH7ffP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4mnu6$96k$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <t4mnu6$96k$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <GYmdnUXY8oBkfvP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 62
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-FeToPFnTSyPo6xo8T+SODkbN6COQS7KNTAgpnBPHy01ltyjoIhXOTzY8fC0cJb1Wj3Smo4XRuVXXWjz!UW5ucIj0s2AxkTODlnWnpj21qOHX/akDAxyDBsyAoub9jWS8QVQG/biXi8L4U4Tp5FovZr1UUc0=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 4209
 by: olcott - Sun, 1 May 2022 19:48 UTC

On 5/1/2022 2:44 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-05-01 13:32, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/1/2022 2:22 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-05-01 13:00, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/1/2022 1:33 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>
>>>>> So which categories are you claiming are involved? Claiming
>>>>> something is a 'category error' means nothing if you don't specify
>>>>> the actual categories involved.
>>>>>
>>>>> André
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My original thinking was that (1) and (2) and the Liar Paradox all
>>>> demonstrate the exact same error. I only have considered (3) in
>>>> recent years, prior to that I never heard of (3).
>>>>
>>>> The category error would be that none of them is in the category of
>>>> truth bearers. For Gödel's G and Tarski's p it would mean that the
>>>> category error is that G and p are not logic sentences.
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_(mathematical_logic)
>>>
>>> And how can you possibly justify your claim that Gödel's G is not a
>>> truth bearer?
>>>
>>
>> Do I have to say the same thing 500 times before you bother to notice
>> that I said it once?
>>
>> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>> undecidability proof
>>
>> Therefore LP ↔ ~True(LP) can be used for a similar undecidability
>> proof, and LP ↔ ~True(LP) is clearly semantically ill-formed.
>>
>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)).
>> LP = not(true(LP)).
>>
>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
>> false. // false means semantically ill-formed.
>
> And what does any of the above have to do with what I state below?
> That's your faulty attempt at expressing The Liar in Prolog, which has
> nothing to do with Gödel's G. G has *a relationship* to The Liar, but G
> is *very* different from The Liar in crucial ways.
14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
undecidability proof

Therfore the liar paradox can likewise be used for a similar
undecidability proof, nitwit.

I would not call you a nitwit except that you so persistently make sure
to ignore my key points, thus probably making you a jackass rather than
a nitwit.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Is this correct Prolog?

<t4moi2$cct$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=31357&group=comp.theory#31357

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: agis...@gm.invalid (André G. Isaak)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Is this correct Prolog?
Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 13:54:42 -0600
Organization: Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism
Lines: 66
Message-ID: <t4moi2$cct$1@dont-email.me>
References: <qcOdndRse-RjQ_H_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<I4lbK.452483$t2Bb.96330@fx98.iad>
<UOGdnc__htYie_D_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4kp78$vuc$1@dont-email.me>
<EKKdnasbsInXjPP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4l65c$bqr$1@dont-email.me>
<lI-dnepDd-0n7PP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4m2b2$kmn$1@dont-email.me>
<AuqdnTWXMZYFLfP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t4mc2l$2q2$2@dont-email.me>
<FdSdnWijBKlSIfP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<20220501185933.000045ad@reddwarf.jmc>
<d9KdnQdt_bnfTPP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4mjq0$7nf$1@dont-email.me>
<hYKdnb4ZyYB0RfP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4mmmg$t4u$1@dont-email.me>
<APOdndfNnIH7ffP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4mnu6$96k$1@dont-email.me>
<GYmdnUXY8oBkfvP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 19:54:42 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="9aade08aa0eb94cd9b9879b12c2d9c29";
logging-data="12701"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+O7j0VkVUbPx13odO72BhD"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:6o0IY003c74RuCRZbXRyE91iWvU=
In-Reply-To: <GYmdnUXY8oBkfvP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: André G. Isaak - Sun, 1 May 2022 19:54 UTC

On 2022-05-01 13:48, olcott wrote:
> On 5/1/2022 2:44 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2022-05-01 13:32, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/1/2022 2:22 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2022-05-01 13:00, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/1/2022 1:33 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> So which categories are you claiming are involved? Claiming
>>>>>> something is a 'category error' means nothing if you don't specify
>>>>>> the actual categories involved.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> André
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> My original thinking was that (1) and (2) and the Liar Paradox all
>>>>> demonstrate the exact same error. I only have considered (3) in
>>>>> recent years, prior to that I never heard of (3).
>>>>>
>>>>> The category error would be that none of them is in the category of
>>>>> truth bearers. For Gödel's G and Tarski's p it would mean that the
>>>>> category error is that G and p are not logic sentences.
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_(mathematical_logic)
>>>>
>>>> And how can you possibly justify your claim that Gödel's G is not a
>>>> truth bearer?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Do I have to say the same thing 500 times before you bother to notice
>>> that I said it once?
>>>
>>> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>>> undecidability proof
>>>
>>> Therefore LP ↔ ~True(LP) can be used for a similar undecidability
>>> proof, and LP ↔ ~True(LP) is clearly semantically ill-formed.
>>>
>>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)).
>>> LP = not(true(LP)).
>>>
>>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
>>> false. // false means semantically ill-formed.
>>
>> And what does any of the above have to do with what I state below?
>> That's your faulty attempt at expressing The Liar in Prolog, which has
>> nothing to do with Gödel's G. G has *a relationship* to The Liar, but
>> G is *very* different from The Liar in crucial ways.
> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
> undecidability proof
>
> Therfore the liar paradox can likewise be used for a similar
> undecidability proof, nitwit.
>
> I would not call you a nitwit except that you so persistently make sure
> to ignore my key points, thus probably making you a jackass rather than
> a nitwit.

And again, you snipped all of the points which followed which explained
*exactly* why the claim you make above is misinformed. Until you address
the points I made, continuing to regurgitate the same spew isn't going
to get you anywhere.

André

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.

Re: Is this correct Prolog?

<vGBbK.452496$t2Bb.23163@fx98.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=31359&group=comp.theory#31359

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy comp.lang.prolog
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr3.eu1.usenetexpress.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed9.news.xs4all.nl!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx98.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.1
Subject: Re: Is this correct Prolog?
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.lang.prolog
References: <qcOdndRse-RjQ_H_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <I4lbK.452483$t2Bb.96330@fx98.iad> <UOGdnc__htYie_D_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4kp78$vuc$1@dont-email.me> <EKKdnasbsInXjPP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4l65c$bqr$1@dont-email.me> <lI-dnepDd-0n7PP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4m2b2$kmn$1@dont-email.me> <AuqdnTWXMZYFLfP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t4mc2l$2q2$2@dont-email.me> <FdSdnWijBKlSIfP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <20220501185933.000045ad@reddwarf.jmc> <d9KdnQdt_bnfTPP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4mjq0$7nf$1@dont-email.me> <hYKdnb4ZyYB0RfP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4mmmg$t4u$1@dont-email.me> <APOdndfNnIH7ffP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4mnu6$96k$1@dont-email.me> <GYmdnUXY8oBkfvP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <GYmdnUXY8oBkfvP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 63
Message-ID: <vGBbK.452496$t2Bb.23163@fx98.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 16:01:32 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 4154
 by: Richard Damon - Sun, 1 May 2022 20:01 UTC

On 5/1/22 3:48 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/1/2022 2:44 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2022-05-01 13:32, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/1/2022 2:22 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2022-05-01 13:00, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/1/2022 1:33 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> So which categories are you claiming are involved? Claiming
>>>>>> something is a 'category error' means nothing if you don't specify
>>>>>> the actual categories involved.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> André
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> My original thinking was that (1) and (2) and the Liar Paradox all
>>>>> demonstrate the exact same error. I only have considered (3) in
>>>>> recent years, prior to that I never heard of (3).
>>>>>
>>>>> The category error would be that none of them is in the category of
>>>>> truth bearers. For Gödel's G and Tarski's p it would mean that the
>>>>> category error is that G and p are not logic sentences.
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_(mathematical_logic)
>>>>
>>>> And how can you possibly justify your claim that Gödel's G is not a
>>>> truth bearer?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Do I have to say the same thing 500 times before you bother to notice
>>> that I said it once?
>>>
>>> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>>> undecidability proof
>>>
>>> Therefore LP ↔ ~True(LP) can be used for a similar undecidability
>>> proof, and LP ↔ ~True(LP) is clearly semantically ill-formed.
>>>
>>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)).
>>> LP = not(true(LP)).
>>>
>>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
>>> false. // false means semantically ill-formed.
>>
>> And what does any of the above have to do with what I state below?
>> That's your faulty attempt at expressing The Liar in Prolog, which has
>> nothing to do with Gödel's G. G has *a relationship* to The Liar, but
>> G is *very* different from The Liar in crucial ways.
> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
> undecidability proof
>
> Therfore the liar paradox can likewise be used for a similar
> undecidability proof, nitwit.
>
> I would not call you a nitwit except that you so persistently make sure
> to ignore my key points, thus probably making you a jackass rather than
> a nitwit.
>
>

So something based on another thing is that other thing?

Does that mean your automobile is just a pile of gasoline?

That IS the argument you are making boiled down to simple terms.

Re: Is this correct Prolog?

<Z6edncOlEsUXevP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=31360&group=comp.theory#31360

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 01 May 2022 15:03:22 -0500
Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 15:03:21 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.1
Subject: Re: Is this correct Prolog?
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <qcOdndRse-RjQ_H_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<I4lbK.452483$t2Bb.96330@fx98.iad>
<UOGdnc__htYie_D_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4kp78$vuc$1@dont-email.me>
<EKKdnasbsInXjPP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4l65c$bqr$1@dont-email.me>
<lI-dnepDd-0n7PP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4m2b2$kmn$1@dont-email.me>
<AuqdnTWXMZYFLfP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t4mc2l$2q2$2@dont-email.me>
<FdSdnWijBKlSIfP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<20220501185933.000045ad@reddwarf.jmc>
<d9KdnQdt_bnfTPP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4mjq0$7nf$1@dont-email.me>
<hYKdnb4ZyYB0RfP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4mmmg$t4u$1@dont-email.me>
<APOdndfNnIH7ffP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4mnu6$96k$1@dont-email.me>
<GYmdnUXY8oBkfvP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4moi2$cct$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <t4moi2$cct$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <Z6edncOlEsUXevP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 82
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-Q3Y7zOQ1jV8S/bxEAknU7WK1kFRZVF/Vcd1geplSkUdB3S5VE90OpRl3AJjooC/J3h9exm5leK+y5R5!oLDC7O1/S6vcPNEceDe6mpk8YM13kaL1mrI4Mhb6gUs7QnaSfejupdeC9hGsCKchlKDRDFp6tP4=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 4937
 by: olcott - Sun, 1 May 2022 20:03 UTC

On 5/1/2022 2:54 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-05-01 13:48, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/1/2022 2:44 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-05-01 13:32, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/1/2022 2:22 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-05-01 13:00, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/1/2022 1:33 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> So which categories are you claiming are involved? Claiming
>>>>>>> something is a 'category error' means nothing if you don't
>>>>>>> specify the actual categories involved.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My original thinking was that (1) and (2) and the Liar Paradox all
>>>>>> demonstrate the exact same error. I only have considered (3) in
>>>>>> recent years, prior to that I never heard of (3).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The category error would be that none of them is in the category
>>>>>> of truth bearers. For Gödel's G and Tarski's p it would mean that
>>>>>> the category error is that G and p are not logic sentences.
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_(mathematical_logic)
>>>>>
>>>>> And how can you possibly justify your claim that Gödel's G is not a
>>>>> truth bearer?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do I have to say the same thing 500 times before you bother to
>>>> notice that I said it once?
>>>>
>>>> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>>>> undecidability proof
>>>>
>>>> Therefore LP ↔ ~True(LP) can be used for a similar undecidability
>>>> proof, and LP ↔ ~True(LP) is clearly semantically ill-formed.
>>>>
>>>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)).
>>>> LP = not(true(LP)).
>>>>
>>>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
>>>> false. // false means semantically ill-formed.
>>>
>>> And what does any of the above have to do with what I state below?
>>> That's your faulty attempt at expressing The Liar in Prolog, which
>>> has nothing to do with Gödel's G. G has *a relationship* to The Liar,
>>> but G is *very* different from The Liar in crucial ways.
>> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>> undecidability proof
>>
>> Therfore the liar paradox can likewise be used for a similar
>> undecidability proof, nitwit.
>>
>> I would not call you a nitwit except that you so persistently make
>> sure to ignore my key points, thus probably making you a jackass
>> rather than a nitwit.
>
> And again, you snipped all of the

God damned attempt to get away with the dishonest dodge of the strawman
error.

14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
undecidability proof

Do you not know what the word "every" means?

"epistemological antinomy" is a little difficult yet Gödel says that the
Liar Paradox is one of these.

(a) G is equivalent to LP
(b) LP is semantically incorrect
(c) Therefore G is semantically incorrect.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Is this correct Prolog?

<t4mr1h$1q0$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=31361&group=comp.theory#31361

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: agis...@gm.invalid (André G. Isaak)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Is this correct Prolog?
Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 14:37:03 -0600
Organization: Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism
Lines: 90
Message-ID: <t4mr1h$1q0$1@dont-email.me>
References: <qcOdndRse-RjQ_H_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<I4lbK.452483$t2Bb.96330@fx98.iad>
<UOGdnc__htYie_D_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4kp78$vuc$1@dont-email.me>
<EKKdnasbsInXjPP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4l65c$bqr$1@dont-email.me>
<lI-dnepDd-0n7PP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4m2b2$kmn$1@dont-email.me>
<AuqdnTWXMZYFLfP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t4mc2l$2q2$2@dont-email.me>
<FdSdnWijBKlSIfP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<20220501185933.000045ad@reddwarf.jmc>
<d9KdnQdt_bnfTPP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4mjq0$7nf$1@dont-email.me>
<hYKdnb4ZyYB0RfP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4mmmg$t4u$1@dont-email.me>
<APOdndfNnIH7ffP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4mnu6$96k$1@dont-email.me>
<GYmdnUXY8oBkfvP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4moi2$cct$1@dont-email.me>
<Z6edncOlEsUXevP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 20:37:05 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="9aade08aa0eb94cd9b9879b12c2d9c29";
logging-data="1856"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/dgdNr51TeBvxfXkZ8IS16"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:DBUsnDm79uVwSjmeVKi+sUZHUAc=
In-Reply-To: <Z6edncOlEsUXevP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: André G. Isaak - Sun, 1 May 2022 20:37 UTC

On 2022-05-01 14:03, olcott wrote:
> On 5/1/2022 2:54 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2022-05-01 13:48, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/1/2022 2:44 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2022-05-01 13:32, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/1/2022 2:22 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-05-01 13:00, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/1/2022 1:33 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So which categories are you claiming are involved? Claiming
>>>>>>>> something is a 'category error' means nothing if you don't
>>>>>>>> specify the actual categories involved.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My original thinking was that (1) and (2) and the Liar Paradox
>>>>>>> all demonstrate the exact same error. I only have considered (3)
>>>>>>> in recent years, prior to that I never heard of (3).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The category error would be that none of them is in the category
>>>>>>> of truth bearers. For Gödel's G and Tarski's p it would mean that
>>>>>>> the category error is that G and p are not logic sentences.
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_(mathematical_logic)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And how can you possibly justify your claim that Gödel's G is not
>>>>>> a truth bearer?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Do I have to say the same thing 500 times before you bother to
>>>>> notice that I said it once?
>>>>>
>>>>> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>> similar undecidability proof
>>>>>
>>>>> Therefore LP ↔ ~True(LP) can be used for a similar undecidability
>>>>> proof, and LP ↔ ~True(LP) is clearly semantically ill-formed.
>>>>>
>>>>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)).
>>>>> LP = not(true(LP)).
>>>>>
>>>>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
>>>>> false. // false means semantically ill-formed.
>>>>
>>>> And what does any of the above have to do with what I state below?
>>>> That's your faulty attempt at expressing The Liar in Prolog, which
>>>> has nothing to do with Gödel's G. G has *a relationship* to The
>>>> Liar, but G is *very* different from The Liar in crucial ways.
>>> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>>> undecidability proof
>>>
>>> Therfore the liar paradox can likewise be used for a similar
>>> undecidability proof, nitwit.
>>>
>>> I would not call you a nitwit except that you so persistently make
>>> sure to ignore my key points, thus probably making you a jackass
>>> rather than a nitwit.
>>
>> And again, you snipped all of the
>
> God damned attempt to get away with the dishonest dodge of the strawman
> error.
>
> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
> undecidability proof
>
> Do you not know what the word "every" means?

Do you understand the difference between 'close relationship' and 'the
same'?

Do you understand what 'similar' means? In this context it means
'bearing the same close relationship'.

And in the parts which you insist on snipping I explained the critical
*differences* which exist between The Liar and G despite that close
relationship.

Why not go back and actually *read* that explanation. The two crucial
differences are

(a) G does *not* assert its own unprovability.

(b) G is most definitely a truth-bearer even if The Liar is not.

André

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.

Re: Is this correct Prolog?

<SJGdnZf-9cUobfP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=31362&group=comp.theory#31362

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy comp.lang.prolog
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 01 May 2022 15:42:29 -0500
Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 15:42:28 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.1
Subject: Re: Is this correct Prolog?
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.lang.prolog
References: <qcOdndRse-RjQ_H_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<I4lbK.452483$t2Bb.96330@fx98.iad>
<UOGdnc__htYie_D_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4kp78$vuc$1@dont-email.me>
<EKKdnasbsInXjPP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4l65c$bqr$1@dont-email.me>
<lI-dnepDd-0n7PP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4m2b2$kmn$1@dont-email.me>
<AuqdnTWXMZYFLfP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t4mc2l$2q2$2@dont-email.me>
<FdSdnWijBKlSIfP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<20220501185933.000045ad@reddwarf.jmc>
<d9KdnQdt_bnfTPP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4mjq0$7nf$1@dont-email.me>
<hYKdnb4ZyYB0RfP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4mmmg$t4u$1@dont-email.me>
<APOdndfNnIH7ffP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4mnu6$96k$1@dont-email.me>
<GYmdnUXY8oBkfvP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4moi2$cct$1@dont-email.me>
<Z6edncOlEsUXevP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4mr1h$1q0$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <t4mr1h$1q0$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <SJGdnZf-9cUobfP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 86
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-Cizx665E3hxhaEi15VvppIw98yEaQbrfmWcKjKN31IBkeso5DXE11mJ4Co1mFZkRT0G8L4ROkkNIYLU!BQVNTZSpFuoHdSIJEvepYoQOyNDQ7A5zon8Fb1drxy7v4BGA8mnhBulMyVUZoAnMCbovyskZbeo=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 5324
 by: olcott - Sun, 1 May 2022 20:42 UTC

On 5/1/2022 3:37 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-05-01 14:03, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/1/2022 2:54 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-05-01 13:48, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/1/2022 2:44 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-05-01 13:32, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/1/2022 2:22 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-05-01 13:00, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2022 1:33 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So which categories are you claiming are involved? Claiming
>>>>>>>>> something is a 'category error' means nothing if you don't
>>>>>>>>> specify the actual categories involved.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My original thinking was that (1) and (2) and the Liar Paradox
>>>>>>>> all demonstrate the exact same error. I only have considered (3)
>>>>>>>> in recent years, prior to that I never heard of (3).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The category error would be that none of them is in the category
>>>>>>>> of truth bearers. For Gödel's G and Tarski's p it would mean
>>>>>>>> that the category error is that G and p are not logic sentences.
>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_(mathematical_logic)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And how can you possibly justify your claim that Gödel's G is not
>>>>>>> a truth bearer?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do I have to say the same thing 500 times before you bother to
>>>>>> notice that I said it once?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>> similar undecidability proof
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Therefore LP ↔ ~True(LP) can be used for a similar undecidability
>>>>>> proof, and LP ↔ ~True(LP) is clearly semantically ill-formed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)).
>>>>>> LP = not(true(LP)).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
>>>>>> false. // false means semantically ill-formed.
>>>>>
>>>>> And what does any of the above have to do with what I state below?
>>>>> That's your faulty attempt at expressing The Liar in Prolog, which
>>>>> has nothing to do with Gödel's G. G has *a relationship* to The
>>>>> Liar, but G is *very* different from The Liar in crucial ways.
>>>> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>>>> undecidability proof
>>>>
>>>> Therfore the liar paradox can likewise be used for a similar
>>>> undecidability proof, nitwit.
>>>>
>>>> I would not call you a nitwit except that you so persistently make
>>>> sure to ignore my key points, thus probably making you a jackass
>>>> rather than a nitwit.
>>>
>>> And again, you snipped all of the
>>
>> God damned attempt to get away with the dishonest dodge of the
>> strawman error.
>>
>> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>> undecidability proof
>>
>> Do you not know what the word "every" means?
>
> Do you understand the difference between 'close relationship' and 'the
> same'?

You freaking dishonest bastard

14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
undecidability proof

The Liar Paradox is an epistemological antinomy

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Is this correct Prolog?

<t4mrsh$871$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=31363&group=comp.theory#31363

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy comp.lang.prolog
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: agis...@gm.invalid (André G. Isaak)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.lang.prolog
Subject: Re: Is this correct Prolog?
Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 14:51:28 -0600
Organization: Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism
Lines: 104
Message-ID: <t4mrsh$871$1@dont-email.me>
References: <qcOdndRse-RjQ_H_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<I4lbK.452483$t2Bb.96330@fx98.iad>
<UOGdnc__htYie_D_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4kp78$vuc$1@dont-email.me>
<EKKdnasbsInXjPP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4l65c$bqr$1@dont-email.me>
<lI-dnepDd-0n7PP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4m2b2$kmn$1@dont-email.me>
<AuqdnTWXMZYFLfP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t4mc2l$2q2$2@dont-email.me>
<FdSdnWijBKlSIfP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<20220501185933.000045ad@reddwarf.jmc>
<d9KdnQdt_bnfTPP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4mjq0$7nf$1@dont-email.me>
<hYKdnb4ZyYB0RfP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4mmmg$t4u$1@dont-email.me>
<APOdndfNnIH7ffP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4mnu6$96k$1@dont-email.me>
<GYmdnUXY8oBkfvP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4moi2$cct$1@dont-email.me>
<Z6edncOlEsUXevP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4mr1h$1q0$1@dont-email.me>
<SJGdnZf-9cUobfP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 20:51:30 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="9aade08aa0eb94cd9b9879b12c2d9c29";
logging-data="8417"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/PXiu/6LY1TzH/jquqR7nX"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:o8Fwn2WeiBQptuhQHkPrsz4wzh4=
In-Reply-To: <SJGdnZf-9cUobfP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: André G. Isaak - Sun, 1 May 2022 20:51 UTC

On 2022-05-01 14:42, olcott wrote:
> On 5/1/2022 3:37 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2022-05-01 14:03, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/1/2022 2:54 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2022-05-01 13:48, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/1/2022 2:44 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-05-01 13:32, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/1/2022 2:22 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2022-05-01 13:00, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2022 1:33 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So which categories are you claiming are involved? Claiming
>>>>>>>>>> something is a 'category error' means nothing if you don't
>>>>>>>>>> specify the actual categories involved.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My original thinking was that (1) and (2) and the Liar Paradox
>>>>>>>>> all demonstrate the exact same error. I only have considered
>>>>>>>>> (3) in recent years, prior to that I never heard of (3).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The category error would be that none of them is in the
>>>>>>>>> category of truth bearers. For Gödel's G and Tarski's p it
>>>>>>>>> would mean that the category error is that G and p are not
>>>>>>>>> logic sentences.
>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_(mathematical_logic)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And how can you possibly justify your claim that Gödel's G is
>>>>>>>> not a truth bearer?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do I have to say the same thing 500 times before you bother to
>>>>>>> notice that I said it once?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>>> similar undecidability proof
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Therefore LP ↔ ~True(LP) can be used for a similar undecidability
>>>>>>> proof, and LP ↔ ~True(LP) is clearly semantically ill-formed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)).
>>>>>>> LP = not(true(LP)).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
>>>>>>> false. // false means semantically ill-formed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And what does any of the above have to do with what I state below?
>>>>>> That's your faulty attempt at expressing The Liar in Prolog, which
>>>>>> has nothing to do with Gödel's G. G has *a relationship* to The
>>>>>> Liar, but G is *very* different from The Liar in crucial ways.
>>>>> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>>>>> undecidability proof
>>>>>
>>>>> Therfore the liar paradox can likewise be used for a similar
>>>>> undecidability proof, nitwit.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would not call you a nitwit except that you so persistently make
>>>>> sure to ignore my key points, thus probably making you a jackass
>>>>> rather than a nitwit.
>>>>
>>>> And again, you snipped all of the
>>>
>>> God damned attempt to get away with the dishonest dodge of the
>>> strawman error.
>>>
>>> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>>> undecidability proof
>>>
>>> Do you not know what the word "every" means?
>>
>> Do you understand the difference between 'close relationship' and 'the
>> same'?
>
> You freaking dishonest bastard

The only one being dishonest here is you as you keep snipping the
substance of my post.

Gödel claims there is a *close relationship* between The Liar and G. He
most certainly does *not* claim that they are the same. (That one can
construct similar proofs which bear a similar close relationship to
other antinomies is hardly relevant since it is The Liar which is under
discussion).

There are two crucial differences between G and The Liar:

(a) G does *not* assert its own unprovability whereas The Liar *does*
assert its own falsity.

(b) G is most definitely a truth-bearer even if The Liar is not.

Your claim the Gödel's theorem is a 'category error' is predicated on
the fact that you don't grasp (b) above. I'm not going to retype my
explanation for this as I have already given it in a previous post.
You're more than welcome to go back and read that post. Unless you
actually have some comment on that explanation, there's no point
repeating yourself.

André

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.

Re: Is this correct Prolog?

<PsCbK.816084$oF2.427670@fx10.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=31364&group=comp.theory#31364

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy comp.lang.prolog
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!peer03.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx10.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.1
Subject: Re: Is this correct Prolog?
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.lang.prolog
References: <qcOdndRse-RjQ_H_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<I4lbK.452483$t2Bb.96330@fx98.iad>
<UOGdnc__htYie_D_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4kp78$vuc$1@dont-email.me>
<EKKdnasbsInXjPP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4l65c$bqr$1@dont-email.me>
<lI-dnepDd-0n7PP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4m2b2$kmn$1@dont-email.me>
<AuqdnTWXMZYFLfP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t4mc2l$2q2$2@dont-email.me>
<FdSdnWijBKlSIfP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<20220501185933.000045ad@reddwarf.jmc>
<d9KdnQdt_bnfTPP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4mjq0$7nf$1@dont-email.me>
<hYKdnb4ZyYB0RfP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4mmmg$t4u$1@dont-email.me>
<APOdndfNnIH7ffP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4mnu6$96k$1@dont-email.me>
<GYmdnUXY8oBkfvP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4moi2$cct$1@dont-email.me>
<Z6edncOlEsUXevP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4mr1h$1q0$1@dont-email.me>
<SJGdnZf-9cUobfP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <SJGdnZf-9cUobfP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 88
Message-ID: <PsCbK.816084$oF2.427670@fx10.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 16:55:12 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 5379
 by: Richard Damon - Sun, 1 May 2022 20:55 UTC

On 5/1/22 4:42 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/1/2022 3:37 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2022-05-01 14:03, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/1/2022 2:54 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2022-05-01 13:48, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/1/2022 2:44 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-05-01 13:32, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/1/2022 2:22 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2022-05-01 13:00, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2022 1:33 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So which categories are you claiming are involved? Claiming
>>>>>>>>>> something is a 'category error' means nothing if you don't
>>>>>>>>>> specify the actual categories involved.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My original thinking was that (1) and (2) and the Liar Paradox
>>>>>>>>> all demonstrate the exact same error. I only have considered
>>>>>>>>> (3) in recent years, prior to that I never heard of (3).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The category error would be that none of them is in the
>>>>>>>>> category of truth bearers. For Gödel's G and Tarski's p it
>>>>>>>>> would mean that the category error is that G and p are not
>>>>>>>>> logic sentences.
>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_(mathematical_logic)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And how can you possibly justify your claim that Gödel's G is
>>>>>>>> not a truth bearer?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do I have to say the same thing 500 times before you bother to
>>>>>>> notice that I said it once?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>>> similar undecidability proof
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Therefore LP ↔ ~True(LP) can be used for a similar undecidability
>>>>>>> proof, and LP ↔ ~True(LP) is clearly semantically ill-formed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)).
>>>>>>> LP = not(true(LP)).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
>>>>>>> false. // false means semantically ill-formed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And what does any of the above have to do with what I state below?
>>>>>> That's your faulty attempt at expressing The Liar in Prolog, which
>>>>>> has nothing to do with Gödel's G. G has *a relationship* to The
>>>>>> Liar, but G is *very* different from The Liar in crucial ways.
>>>>> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>>>>> undecidability proof
>>>>>
>>>>> Therfore the liar paradox can likewise be used for a similar
>>>>> undecidability proof, nitwit.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would not call you a nitwit except that you so persistently make
>>>>> sure to ignore my key points, thus probably making you a jackass
>>>>> rather than a nitwit.
>>>>
>>>> And again, you snipped all of the
>>>
>>> God damned attempt to get away with the dishonest dodge of the
>>> strawman error.
>>>
>>> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>>> undecidability proof
>>>
>>> Do you not know what the word "every" means?
>>
>> Do you understand the difference between 'close relationship' and 'the
>> same'?
>
> You freaking dishonest bastard
>
> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>  undecidability proof
>
> The Liar Paradox is an epistemological antinomy
>
>

Right, But G isn't, because it ISN'T the Liar's Paradox, but has a
structure based on the Liar's Paradox but transformed.

Your failure to understand this difference says you are unqualified to
talk about the meaning of words, or basic logical principles.

Re: Is this correct Prolog?

<t4msvv$ecb$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=31365&group=comp.theory#31365

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: jbb...@notatt.com (Jeff Barnett)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Is this correct Prolog?
Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 15:10:22 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <t4msvv$ecb$1@dont-email.me>
References: <qcOdndRse-RjQ_H_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<I4lbK.452483$t2Bb.96330@fx98.iad>
<UOGdnc__htYie_D_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4kp78$vuc$1@dont-email.me>
<EKKdnasbsInXjPP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4l65c$bqr$1@dont-email.me>
<lI-dnepDd-0n7PP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4m2b2$kmn$1@dont-email.me>
<AuqdnTWXMZYFLfP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t4mc2l$2q2$2@dont-email.me>
<FdSdnWijBKlSIfP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<20220501185933.000045ad@reddwarf.jmc>
<d9KdnQdt_bnfTPP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4mjq0$7nf$1@dont-email.me>
<hYKdnb4ZyYB0RfP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4mmmg$t4u$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Injection-Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 21:10:23 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="dfa4a43240a45544272de93b7ef2f48d";
logging-data="14731"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/dOf+YxduKfDJP85ekYV2/vfdLGsO7iJc="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:8h02XSoyyfufbig2UWgf419uncI=
In-Reply-To: <t4mmmg$t4u$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: Jeff Barnett - Sun, 1 May 2022 21:10 UTC

On 5/1/2022 1:22 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-05-01 13:00, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/1/2022 1:33 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>
>>> So which categories are you claiming are involved? Claiming something
>>> is a 'category error' means nothing if you don't specify the actual
>>> categories involved.
>>>
>>> André
>>>
>>
>> My original thinking was that (1) and (2) and the Liar Paradox all
>> demonstrate the exact same error. I only have considered (3) in recent
>> years, prior to that I never heard of (3).
>>
>> The category error would be that none of them is in the category of
>> truth bearers. For Gödel's G and Tarski's p it would mean that the
>> category error is that G and p are not logic sentences.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_(mathematical_logic)
>
> And how can you possibly justify your claim that Gödel's G is not a
> truth bearer?
>
> Gödels G asserts that a specific polynomial equation has a solution.
>
> Since every polynomial equation either has a solution or doesn't have
> one, G *must* either be true or false which means it *must* be a truth
> bearer.
Just to be pedantic: Isn't the requirement that a polynomial with
integer coefficients have an integer solution?
--
Jeff Barnett

Re: Is this correct Prolog?

<t4mt2d$gjd$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=31367&group=comp.theory#31367

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: agis...@gm.invalid (André G. Isaak)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Is this correct Prolog?
Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 15:11:41 -0600
Organization: Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <t4mt2d$gjd$1@dont-email.me>
References: <qcOdndRse-RjQ_H_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<I4lbK.452483$t2Bb.96330@fx98.iad>
<UOGdnc__htYie_D_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4kp78$vuc$1@dont-email.me>
<EKKdnasbsInXjPP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4l65c$bqr$1@dont-email.me>
<lI-dnepDd-0n7PP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4m2b2$kmn$1@dont-email.me>
<AuqdnTWXMZYFLfP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t4mc2l$2q2$2@dont-email.me>
<FdSdnWijBKlSIfP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<20220501185933.000045ad@reddwarf.jmc>
<d9KdnQdt_bnfTPP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4mjq0$7nf$1@dont-email.me>
<hYKdnb4ZyYB0RfP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4mmmg$t4u$1@dont-email.me>
<t4msvv$ecb$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 21:11:41 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="44095fc4b5e26c98bcd8c2fa4d7b5696";
logging-data="17005"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19US89B/J6UzcDRgf67iKbN"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:JFOTnzZRjN2c5EJoEdxPsqEzRFU=
In-Reply-To: <t4msvv$ecb$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: André G. Isaak - Sun, 1 May 2022 21:11 UTC

On 2022-05-01 15:10, Jeff Barnett wrote:
> On 5/1/2022 1:22 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2022-05-01 13:00, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/1/2022 1:33 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>
>>>> So which categories are you claiming are involved? Claiming
>>>> something is a 'category error' means nothing if you don't specify
>>>> the actual categories involved.
>>>>
>>>> André
>>>>
>>>
>>> My original thinking was that (1) and (2) and the Liar Paradox all
>>> demonstrate the exact same error. I only have considered (3) in
>>> recent years, prior to that I never heard of (3).
>>>
>>> The category error would be that none of them is in the category of
>>> truth bearers. For Gödel's G and Tarski's p it would mean that the
>>> category error is that G and p are not logic sentences.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_(mathematical_logic)
>>
>> And how can you possibly justify your claim that Gödel's G is not a
>> truth bearer?
>>
>> Gödels G asserts that a specific polynomial equation has a solution.
>>
>> Since every polynomial equation either has a solution or doesn't have
>> one, G *must* either be true or false which means it *must* be a truth
>> bearer.
> Just to be pedantic: Isn't the requirement that a polynomial with
> integer coefficients have an integer solution?

Yes. My bad.

André

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.

Re: Is this correct Prolog?

<t4mv8p$v7o$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=31368&group=comp.theory#31368

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polco...@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Is this correct Prolog?
Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 16:49:12 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 44
Message-ID: <t4mv8p$v7o$1@dont-email.me>
References: <qcOdndRse-RjQ_H_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<I4lbK.452483$t2Bb.96330@fx98.iad>
<UOGdnc__htYie_D_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4kp78$vuc$1@dont-email.me>
<EKKdnasbsInXjPP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4l65c$bqr$1@dont-email.me>
<lI-dnepDd-0n7PP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4m2b2$kmn$1@dont-email.me>
<AuqdnTWXMZYFLfP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t4mc2l$2q2$2@dont-email.me>
<FdSdnWijBKlSIfP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<20220501185933.000045ad@reddwarf.jmc>
<d9KdnQdt_bnfTPP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4mjq0$7nf$1@dont-email.me>
<hYKdnb4ZyYB0RfP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4mmmg$t4u$1@dont-email.me>
<t4msvv$ecb$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 21:49:13 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="c2520d0307b0b198e014f96ec09ab41a";
logging-data="31992"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+SPCCJhST4qPmiE0JoEQ5G"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:6u2Sgg6IkwMlcSwgwfeC9G47qjk=
In-Reply-To: <t4msvv$ecb$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: olcott - Sun, 1 May 2022 21:49 UTC

On 5/1/2022 4:10 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
> On 5/1/2022 1:22 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2022-05-01 13:00, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/1/2022 1:33 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>
>>>> So which categories are you claiming are involved? Claiming
>>>> something is a 'category error' means nothing if you don't specify
>>>> the actual categories involved.
>>>>
>>>> André
>>>>
>>>
>>> My original thinking was that (1) and (2) and the Liar Paradox all
>>> demonstrate the exact same error. I only have considered (3) in
>>> recent years, prior to that I never heard of (3).
>>>
>>> The category error would be that none of them is in the category of
>>> truth bearers. For Gödel's G and Tarski's p it would mean that the
>>> category error is that G and p are not logic sentences.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_(mathematical_logic)
>>
>> And how can you possibly justify your claim that Gödel's G is not a
>> truth bearer?
>>
>> Gödels G asserts that a specific polynomial equation has a solution.
>>
>> Since every polynomial equation either has a solution or doesn't have
>> one, G *must* either be true or false which means it *must* be a truth
>> bearer.
> Just to be pedantic: Isn't the requirement that a polynomial with
> integer coefficients have an integer solution?

Since Gödel said:
14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
undecidability proof

and the Liar Paradox is an epistemological antinomy
then when the liar Paradox is shown to be incorrect G is shown to be
incorrect when its equivalent proxy is shown to be incorrect.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Re: Is this correct Prolog?

<Q56dnS17EP9PnvL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=31369&group=comp.theory#31369

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy comp.lang.prolog
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 01 May 2022 17:04:02 -0500
Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 17:04:01 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.1
Subject: Re: Is this correct Prolog?
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.lang.prolog
References: <qcOdndRse-RjQ_H_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<I4lbK.452483$t2Bb.96330@fx98.iad>
<UOGdnc__htYie_D_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4kp78$vuc$1@dont-email.me>
<EKKdnasbsInXjPP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4l65c$bqr$1@dont-email.me>
<lI-dnepDd-0n7PP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4m2b2$kmn$1@dont-email.me>
<AuqdnTWXMZYFLfP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t4mc2l$2q2$2@dont-email.me>
<FdSdnWijBKlSIfP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<20220501185933.000045ad@reddwarf.jmc>
<d9KdnQdt_bnfTPP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4mjq0$7nf$1@dont-email.me>
<hYKdnb4ZyYB0RfP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4mmmg$t4u$1@dont-email.me>
<APOdndfNnIH7ffP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4mnu6$96k$1@dont-email.me>
<GYmdnUXY8oBkfvP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4moi2$cct$1@dont-email.me>
<Z6edncOlEsUXevP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4mr1h$1q0$1@dont-email.me>
<SJGdnZf-9cUobfP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t4mrsh$871$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <t4mrsh$871$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <Q56dnS17EP9PnvL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 117
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-K3upI9ZawuPizpVFp4s9+WydgaPxKElcTTleEdf/teS5uVbESVe4aJ9zhK7eO7Kk57RQb4ft2FfAM6p!WYl8eN8ncCn5RehqryRKY2uiDvCL+tysx6na18AsakFMrrG807ZpqqUespAGX/L+BxEuHBA6Dbk=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 6761
 by: olcott - Sun, 1 May 2022 22:04 UTC

On 5/1/2022 3:51 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-05-01 14:42, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/1/2022 3:37 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-05-01 14:03, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/1/2022 2:54 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-05-01 13:48, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/1/2022 2:44 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-05-01 13:32, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2022 2:22 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2022-05-01 13:00, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2022 1:33 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So which categories are you claiming are involved? Claiming
>>>>>>>>>>> something is a 'category error' means nothing if you don't
>>>>>>>>>>> specify the actual categories involved.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> My original thinking was that (1) and (2) and the Liar Paradox
>>>>>>>>>> all demonstrate the exact same error. I only have considered
>>>>>>>>>> (3) in recent years, prior to that I never heard of (3).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The category error would be that none of them is in the
>>>>>>>>>> category of truth bearers. For Gödel's G and Tarski's p it
>>>>>>>>>> would mean that the category error is that G and p are not
>>>>>>>>>> logic sentences.
>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_(mathematical_logic)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And how can you possibly justify your claim that Gödel's G is
>>>>>>>>> not a truth bearer?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do I have to say the same thing 500 times before you bother to
>>>>>>>> notice that I said it once?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>>>> similar undecidability proof
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Therefore LP ↔ ~True(LP) can be used for a similar
>>>>>>>> undecidability proof, and LP ↔ ~True(LP) is clearly semantically
>>>>>>>> ill-formed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)).
>>>>>>>> LP = not(true(LP)).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
>>>>>>>> false. // false means semantically ill-formed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And what does any of the above have to do with what I state
>>>>>>> below? That's your faulty attempt at expressing The Liar in
>>>>>>> Prolog, which has nothing to do with Gödel's G. G has *a
>>>>>>> relationship* to The Liar, but G is *very* different from The
>>>>>>> Liar in crucial ways.
>>>>>> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>>>>>> undecidability proof
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Therfore the liar paradox can likewise be used for a similar
>>>>>> undecidability proof, nitwit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would not call you a nitwit except that you so persistently make
>>>>>> sure to ignore my key points, thus probably making you a jackass
>>>>>> rather than a nitwit.
>>>>>
>>>>> And again, you snipped all of the
>>>>
>>>> God damned attempt to get away with the dishonest dodge of the
>>>> strawman error.
>>>>
>>>> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>>>> undecidability proof
>>>>
>>>> Do you not know what the word "every" means?
>>>
>>> Do you understand the difference between 'close relationship' and
>>> 'the same'?
>>
>> You freaking dishonest bastard
>
> The only one being dishonest here is you as you keep snipping the
> substance of my post.
>
> Gödel claims there is a *close relationship* between The Liar and G. He
> most certainly does *not* claim that they are the same. (That one can
> construct similar proofs which bear a similar close relationship to
> other antinomies is hardly relevant since it is The Liar which is under
> discussion).
>
> There are two crucial differences between G and The Liar:
>
> (a) G does *not* assert its own unprovability whereas The Liar *does*
> assert its own falsity.
>
> (b) G is most definitely a truth-bearer even if The Liar is not.
>
> Your claim the Gödel's theorem is a 'category error' is predicated on
> the fact that you don't grasp (b) above. I'm not going to retype my
> explanation for this as I have already given it in a previous post.
> You're more than welcome to go back and read that post. Unless you
> actually have some comment on that explanation, there's no point
> repeating yourself.
>
> André
>

14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
undecidability proof

and the Liar Paradox is and is an epistemological antinomy you lying
bastard.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Is this correct Prolog?

<t4n07j$9fv$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=31370&group=comp.theory#31370

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy comp.lang.prolog
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polco...@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.lang.prolog
Subject: Re: Is this correct Prolog?
Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 17:05:37 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 118
Message-ID: <t4n07j$9fv$1@dont-email.me>
References: <qcOdndRse-RjQ_H_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<I4lbK.452483$t2Bb.96330@fx98.iad>
<UOGdnc__htYie_D_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4kp78$vuc$1@dont-email.me>
<EKKdnasbsInXjPP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4l65c$bqr$1@dont-email.me>
<lI-dnepDd-0n7PP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4m2b2$kmn$1@dont-email.me>
<AuqdnTWXMZYFLfP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t4mc2l$2q2$2@dont-email.me>
<FdSdnWijBKlSIfP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<20220501185933.000045ad@reddwarf.jmc>
<d9KdnQdt_bnfTPP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4mjq0$7nf$1@dont-email.me>
<hYKdnb4ZyYB0RfP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4mmmg$t4u$1@dont-email.me>
<APOdndfNnIH7ffP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4mnu6$96k$1@dont-email.me>
<GYmdnUXY8oBkfvP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4moi2$cct$1@dont-email.me>
<Z6edncOlEsUXevP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4mr1h$1q0$1@dont-email.me>
<SJGdnZf-9cUobfP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t4mrsh$871$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 22:05:39 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="d3e0e423381921f0d6386f2137e81510";
logging-data="9727"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19QwmmesPhar2ezqVENw4N5"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:0Z1dR4KkeEVVatInBu40B0SG7GM=
In-Reply-To: <t4mrsh$871$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: olcott - Sun, 1 May 2022 22:05 UTC

On 5/1/2022 3:51 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-05-01 14:42, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/1/2022 3:37 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-05-01 14:03, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/1/2022 2:54 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-05-01 13:48, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/1/2022 2:44 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-05-01 13:32, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2022 2:22 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2022-05-01 13:00, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2022 1:33 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So which categories are you claiming are involved? Claiming
>>>>>>>>>>> something is a 'category error' means nothing if you don't
>>>>>>>>>>> specify the actual categories involved.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> My original thinking was that (1) and (2) and the Liar Paradox
>>>>>>>>>> all demonstrate the exact same error. I only have considered
>>>>>>>>>> (3) in recent years, prior to that I never heard of (3).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The category error would be that none of them is in the
>>>>>>>>>> category of truth bearers. For Gödel's G and Tarski's p it
>>>>>>>>>> would mean that the category error is that G and p are not
>>>>>>>>>> logic sentences.
>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_(mathematical_logic)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And how can you possibly justify your claim that Gödel's G is
>>>>>>>>> not a truth bearer?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do I have to say the same thing 500 times before you bother to
>>>>>>>> notice that I said it once?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>>>> similar undecidability proof
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Therefore LP ↔ ~True(LP) can be used for a similar
>>>>>>>> undecidability proof, and LP ↔ ~True(LP) is clearly semantically
>>>>>>>> ill-formed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)).
>>>>>>>> LP = not(true(LP)).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
>>>>>>>> false. // false means semantically ill-formed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And what does any of the above have to do with what I state
>>>>>>> below? That's your faulty attempt at expressing The Liar in
>>>>>>> Prolog, which has nothing to do with Gödel's G. G has *a
>>>>>>> relationship* to The Liar, but G is *very* different from The
>>>>>>> Liar in crucial ways.
>>>>>> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>>>>>> undecidability proof
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Therfore the liar paradox can likewise be used for a similar
>>>>>> undecidability proof, nitwit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would not call you a nitwit except that you so persistently make
>>>>>> sure to ignore my key points, thus probably making you a jackass
>>>>>> rather than a nitwit.
>>>>>
>>>>> And again, you snipped all of the
>>>>
>>>> God damned attempt to get away with the dishonest dodge of the
>>>> strawman error.
>>>>
>>>> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>>>> undecidability proof
>>>>
>>>> Do you not know what the word "every" means?
>>>
>>> Do you understand the difference between 'close relationship' and
>>> 'the same'?
>>
>> You freaking dishonest bastard
>
> The only one being dishonest here is you as you keep snipping the
> substance of my post.
>
> Gödel claims there is a *close relationship* between The Liar and G. He
> most certainly does *not* claim that they are the same.

14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
undecidability proof

and the Liar Paradox is and is an epistemological antinomy you lying
bastard.

> (That one can
> construct similar proofs which bear a similar close relationship to
> other antinomies is hardly relevant since it is The Liar which is under
> discussion).
>
> There are two crucial differences between G and The Liar:
>
> (a) G does *not* assert its own unprovability whereas The Liar *does*
> assert its own falsity.
>
> (b) G is most definitely a truth-bearer even if The Liar is not.
>
> Your claim the Gödel's theorem is a 'category error' is predicated on
> the fact that you don't grasp (b) above. I'm not going to retype my
> explanation for this as I have already given it in a previous post.
> You're more than welcome to go back and read that post. Unless you
> actually have some comment on that explanation, there's no point
> repeating yourself.
>
> André
>

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Re: Is this correct Prolog?

<EwDbK.161778$Kdf.36011@fx96.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=31371&group=comp.theory#31371

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!peer02.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx96.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.1
Subject: Re: Is this correct Prolog?
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <qcOdndRse-RjQ_H_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<I4lbK.452483$t2Bb.96330@fx98.iad>
<UOGdnc__htYie_D_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4kp78$vuc$1@dont-email.me>
<EKKdnasbsInXjPP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4l65c$bqr$1@dont-email.me>
<lI-dnepDd-0n7PP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4m2b2$kmn$1@dont-email.me>
<AuqdnTWXMZYFLfP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t4mc2l$2q2$2@dont-email.me>
<FdSdnWijBKlSIfP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<20220501185933.000045ad@reddwarf.jmc>
<d9KdnQdt_bnfTPP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4mjq0$7nf$1@dont-email.me>
<hYKdnb4ZyYB0RfP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4mmmg$t4u$1@dont-email.me>
<t4msvv$ecb$1@dont-email.me> <t4mv8p$v7o$1@dont-email.me>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <t4mv8p$v7o$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 49
Message-ID: <EwDbK.161778$Kdf.36011@fx96.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 18:07:34 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 3536
 by: Richard Damon - Sun, 1 May 2022 22:07 UTC

On 5/1/22 5:49 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/1/2022 4:10 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>> On 5/1/2022 1:22 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-05-01 13:00, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/1/2022 1:33 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>
>>>>> So which categories are you claiming are involved? Claiming
>>>>> something is a 'category error' means nothing if you don't specify
>>>>> the actual categories involved.
>>>>>
>>>>> André
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My original thinking was that (1) and (2) and the Liar Paradox all
>>>> demonstrate the exact same error. I only have considered (3) in
>>>> recent years, prior to that I never heard of (3).
>>>>
>>>> The category error would be that none of them is in the category of
>>>> truth bearers. For Gödel's G and Tarski's p it would mean that the
>>>> category error is that G and p are not logic sentences.
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_(mathematical_logic)
>>>
>>> And how can you possibly justify your claim that Gödel's G is not a
>>> truth bearer?
>>>
>>> Gödels G asserts that a specific polynomial equation has a solution.
>>>
>>> Since every polynomial equation either has a solution or doesn't have
>>> one, G *must* either be true or false which means it *must* be a
>>> truth bearer.
>> Just to be pedantic: Isn't the requirement that a polynomial with
>> integer coefficients have an integer solution?
>
> Since Gödel said:
> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>  undecidability proof
>
> and the Liar Paradox is an epistemological antinomy
> then when the liar Paradox is shown to be incorrect G is shown to be
> incorrect when its equivalent proxy is shown to be incorrect.
>

Nope, just shows you don't understand being related isn't the same as
being just like.

I presume you are related to your Mother, I hope you aren't actually
her. (That would be weirder than being your own grandpa, which sort of
is possible).

Re: Is this correct Prolog?

<xxDbK.161779$Kdf.72054@fx96.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=31372&group=comp.theory#31372

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy comp.lang.prolog
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.uzoreto.com!npeer.as286.net!npeer-ng0.as286.net!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx96.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.1
Subject: Re: Is this correct Prolog?
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.lang.prolog
References: <qcOdndRse-RjQ_H_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<UOGdnc__htYie_D_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4kp78$vuc$1@dont-email.me>
<EKKdnasbsInXjPP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4l65c$bqr$1@dont-email.me>
<lI-dnepDd-0n7PP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4m2b2$kmn$1@dont-email.me>
<AuqdnTWXMZYFLfP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t4mc2l$2q2$2@dont-email.me>
<FdSdnWijBKlSIfP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<20220501185933.000045ad@reddwarf.jmc>
<d9KdnQdt_bnfTPP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4mjq0$7nf$1@dont-email.me>
<hYKdnb4ZyYB0RfP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4mmmg$t4u$1@dont-email.me>
<APOdndfNnIH7ffP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4mnu6$96k$1@dont-email.me>
<GYmdnUXY8oBkfvP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4moi2$cct$1@dont-email.me>
<Z6edncOlEsUXevP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4mr1h$1q0$1@dont-email.me>
<SJGdnZf-9cUobfP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t4mrsh$871$1@dont-email.me>
<Q56dnS17EP9PnvL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <Q56dnS17EP9PnvL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 115
Message-ID: <xxDbK.161779$Kdf.72054@fx96.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 18:08:31 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 6609
 by: Richard Damon - Sun, 1 May 2022 22:08 UTC

On 5/1/22 6:04 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/1/2022 3:51 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2022-05-01 14:42, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/1/2022 3:37 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2022-05-01 14:03, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/1/2022 2:54 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-05-01 13:48, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/1/2022 2:44 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2022-05-01 13:32, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2022 2:22 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-05-01 13:00, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2022 1:33 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So which categories are you claiming are involved? Claiming
>>>>>>>>>>>> something is a 'category error' means nothing if you don't
>>>>>>>>>>>> specify the actual categories involved.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> My original thinking was that (1) and (2) and the Liar
>>>>>>>>>>> Paradox all demonstrate the exact same error. I only have
>>>>>>>>>>> considered (3) in recent years, prior to that I never heard
>>>>>>>>>>> of (3).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The category error would be that none of them is in the
>>>>>>>>>>> category of truth bearers. For Gödel's G and Tarski's p it
>>>>>>>>>>> would mean that the category error is that G and p are not
>>>>>>>>>>> logic sentences.
>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_(mathematical_logic)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And how can you possibly justify your claim that Gödel's G is
>>>>>>>>>> not a truth bearer?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do I have to say the same thing 500 times before you bother to
>>>>>>>>> notice that I said it once?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>>>>> similar undecidability proof
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Therefore LP ↔ ~True(LP) can be used for a similar
>>>>>>>>> undecidability proof, and LP ↔ ~True(LP) is clearly
>>>>>>>>> semantically ill-formed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)).
>>>>>>>>> LP = not(true(LP)).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
>>>>>>>>> false. // false means semantically ill-formed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And what does any of the above have to do with what I state
>>>>>>>> below? That's your faulty attempt at expressing The Liar in
>>>>>>>> Prolog, which has nothing to do with Gödel's G. G has *a
>>>>>>>> relationship* to The Liar, but G is *very* different from The
>>>>>>>> Liar in crucial ways.
>>>>>>> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>>>>>>> undecidability proof
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Therfore the liar paradox can likewise be used for a similar
>>>>>>> undecidability proof, nitwit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would not call you a nitwit except that you so persistently
>>>>>>> make sure to ignore my key points, thus probably making you a
>>>>>>> jackass rather than a nitwit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And again, you snipped all of the
>>>>>
>>>>> God damned attempt to get away with the dishonest dodge of the
>>>>> strawman error.
>>>>>
>>>>> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>> similar undecidability proof
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you not know what the word "every" means?
>>>>
>>>> Do you understand the difference between 'close relationship' and
>>>> 'the same'?
>>>
>>> You freaking dishonest bastard
>>
>> The only one being dishonest here is you as you keep snipping the
>> substance of my post.
>>
>> Gödel claims there is a *close relationship* between The Liar and G.
>> He most certainly does *not* claim that they are the same. (That one
>> can construct similar proofs which bear a similar close relationship
>> to other antinomies is hardly relevant since it is The Liar which is
>> under discussion).
>>
>> There are two crucial differences between G and The Liar:
>>
>> (a) G does *not* assert its own unprovability whereas The Liar *does*
>> assert its own falsity.
>>
>> (b) G is most definitely a truth-bearer even if The Liar is not.
>>
>> Your claim the Gödel's theorem is a 'category error' is predicated on
>> the fact that you don't grasp (b) above. I'm not going to retype my
>> explanation for this as I have already given it in a previous post.
>> You're more than welcome to go back and read that post. Unless you
>> actually have some comment on that explanation, there's no point
>> repeating yourself.
>>
>> André
>>
>
> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
> undecidability proof
>
> and the Liar Paradox is and is an epistemological antinomy you lying
> bastard.
>

So, there is a difference between being used for and being just like.

Re: Is this correct Prolog?

<t4n205$kav$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=31374&group=comp.theory#31374

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polco...@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Is this correct Prolog?
Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 17:35:47 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 60
Message-ID: <t4n205$kav$1@dont-email.me>
References: <qcOdndRse-RjQ_H_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<I4lbK.452483$t2Bb.96330@fx98.iad>
<UOGdnc__htYie_D_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4kp78$vuc$1@dont-email.me>
<EKKdnasbsInXjPP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4l65c$bqr$1@dont-email.me>
<lI-dnepDd-0n7PP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4m2b2$kmn$1@dont-email.me>
<AuqdnTWXMZYFLfP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t4mc2l$2q2$2@dont-email.me>
<FdSdnWijBKlSIfP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<20220501185933.000045ad@reddwarf.jmc>
<d9KdnQdt_bnfTPP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4mjq0$7nf$1@dont-email.me>
<hYKdnb4ZyYB0RfP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4mmmg$t4u$1@dont-email.me>
<t4msvv$ecb$1@dont-email.me> <t4mv8p$v7o$1@dont-email.me>
<EwDbK.161778$Kdf.36011@fx96.iad>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 22:35:49 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="d3e0e423381921f0d6386f2137e81510";
logging-data="20831"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18S4JrkealWaa69LR2e1BIA"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:T/Ld6pI/BRdebCIPyh2K3tC8imQ=
In-Reply-To: <EwDbK.161778$Kdf.36011@fx96.iad>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: olcott - Sun, 1 May 2022 22:35 UTC

On 5/1/2022 5:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/1/22 5:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/1/2022 4:10 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>> On 5/1/2022 1:22 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2022-05-01 13:00, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/1/2022 1:33 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> So which categories are you claiming are involved? Claiming
>>>>>> something is a 'category error' means nothing if you don't specify
>>>>>> the actual categories involved.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> André
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> My original thinking was that (1) and (2) and the Liar Paradox all
>>>>> demonstrate the exact same error. I only have considered (3) in
>>>>> recent years, prior to that I never heard of (3).
>>>>>
>>>>> The category error would be that none of them is in the category of
>>>>> truth bearers. For Gödel's G and Tarski's p it would mean that the
>>>>> category error is that G and p are not logic sentences.
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_(mathematical_logic)
>>>>
>>>> And how can you possibly justify your claim that Gödel's G is not a
>>>> truth bearer?
>>>>
>>>> Gödels G asserts that a specific polynomial equation has a solution.
>>>>
>>>> Since every polynomial equation either has a solution or doesn't
>>>> have one, G *must* either be true or false which means it *must* be
>>>> a truth bearer.
>>> Just to be pedantic: Isn't the requirement that a polynomial with
>>> integer coefficients have an integer solution?
>>
>> Since Gödel said:
>> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>>   undecidability proof
>>
>> and the Liar Paradox is an epistemological antinomy
>> then when the liar Paradox is shown to be incorrect G is shown to be
>> incorrect when its equivalent proxy is shown to be incorrect.
>>
>
> Nope, just shows you don't understand being related isn't the same as
> being just like.
>

All X are Y
LP is an X
Therefore LP is a Y

> I presume you are related to your Mother, I hope you aren't actually
> her. (That would be weirder than being your own grandpa, which sort of
> is possible).
>

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Re: Is this correct Prolog?

<t4n23b$mbv$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=31375&group=comp.theory#31375

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy comp.lang.prolog
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: agis...@gm.invalid (André G. Isaak)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.lang.prolog
Subject: Re: Is this correct Prolog?
Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 16:37:29 -0600
Organization: Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism
Lines: 50
Message-ID: <t4n23b$mbv$1@dont-email.me>
References: <qcOdndRse-RjQ_H_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<UOGdnc__htYie_D_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4kp78$vuc$1@dont-email.me>
<EKKdnasbsInXjPP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4l65c$bqr$1@dont-email.me>
<lI-dnepDd-0n7PP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4m2b2$kmn$1@dont-email.me>
<AuqdnTWXMZYFLfP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t4mc2l$2q2$2@dont-email.me>
<FdSdnWijBKlSIfP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<20220501185933.000045ad@reddwarf.jmc>
<d9KdnQdt_bnfTPP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4mjq0$7nf$1@dont-email.me>
<hYKdnb4ZyYB0RfP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4mmmg$t4u$1@dont-email.me>
<APOdndfNnIH7ffP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4mnu6$96k$1@dont-email.me>
<GYmdnUXY8oBkfvP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4moi2$cct$1@dont-email.me>
<Z6edncOlEsUXevP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4mr1h$1q0$1@dont-email.me>
<SJGdnZf-9cUobfP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t4mrsh$871$1@dont-email.me>
<Q56dnS17EP9PnvL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 22:37:31 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="14bcd4ff359eac72d19c1e3678a0d1b5";
logging-data="22911"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/m/YpF/xu+L24pw/9YPxJn"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:AkDSVTs/lBpeAIYrLp08Srz6Ywo=
In-Reply-To: <Q56dnS17EP9PnvL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: André G. Isaak - Sun, 1 May 2022 22:37 UTC

On 2022-05-01 16:04, olcott wrote:
> On 5/1/2022 3:51 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:

>> The only one being dishonest here is you as you keep snipping the
>> substance of my post.
>>
>> Gödel claims there is a *close relationship* between The Liar and G.
>> He most certainly does *not* claim that they are the same. (That one
>> can construct similar proofs which bear a similar close relationship
>> to other antinomies is hardly relevant since it is The Liar which is
>> under discussion).
>>
>> There are two crucial differences between G and The Liar:
>>
>> (a) G does *not* assert its own unprovability whereas The Liar *does*
>> assert its own falsity.
>>
>> (b) G is most definitely a truth-bearer even if The Liar is not.
>>
>> Your claim the Gödel's theorem is a 'category error' is predicated on
>> the fact that you don't grasp (b) above. I'm not going to retype my
>> explanation for this as I have already given it in a previous post.
>> You're more than welcome to go back and read that post. Unless you
>> actually have some comment on that explanation, there's no point
>> repeating yourself.
>>
>> André
>>
>
> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
> undecidability proof
>
> and the Liar Paradox is and is an epistemological antinomy you lying
> bastard.

Since you're clearly not planning on addressing any of my points, I
think we're done.

I'll leave you with a small multiple choice quiz: Are you

(a) someone who was dropped on their head as a child.
(b) suffering from foetal alcohol syndrome.
(c) thick as a brick.
(d) all of the above.

André

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.

Re: Is this correct Prolog?

<t4n275$mr8$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=31376&group=comp.theory#31376

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy comp.lang.prolog
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polco...@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.lang.prolog
Subject: Re: Is this correct Prolog?
Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 17:39:32 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 123
Message-ID: <t4n275$mr8$1@dont-email.me>
References: <qcOdndRse-RjQ_H_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<UOGdnc__htYie_D_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4kp78$vuc$1@dont-email.me>
<EKKdnasbsInXjPP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4l65c$bqr$1@dont-email.me>
<lI-dnepDd-0n7PP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4m2b2$kmn$1@dont-email.me>
<AuqdnTWXMZYFLfP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t4mc2l$2q2$2@dont-email.me>
<FdSdnWijBKlSIfP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<20220501185933.000045ad@reddwarf.jmc>
<d9KdnQdt_bnfTPP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4mjq0$7nf$1@dont-email.me>
<hYKdnb4ZyYB0RfP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4mmmg$t4u$1@dont-email.me>
<APOdndfNnIH7ffP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4mnu6$96k$1@dont-email.me>
<GYmdnUXY8oBkfvP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4moi2$cct$1@dont-email.me>
<Z6edncOlEsUXevP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4mr1h$1q0$1@dont-email.me>
<SJGdnZf-9cUobfP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t4mrsh$871$1@dont-email.me>
<Q56dnS17EP9PnvL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<xxDbK.161779$Kdf.72054@fx96.iad>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 22:39:33 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="d3e0e423381921f0d6386f2137e81510";
logging-data="23400"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX183wNLBoVMC1wQiTvjXTfSR"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:YvBFOYAqN7jG609fDw6P7SdAYHo=
In-Reply-To: <xxDbK.161779$Kdf.72054@fx96.iad>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: olcott - Sun, 1 May 2022 22:39 UTC

On 5/1/2022 5:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/1/22 6:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/1/2022 3:51 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-05-01 14:42, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/1/2022 3:37 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-05-01 14:03, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/1/2022 2:54 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-05-01 13:48, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2022 2:44 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2022-05-01 13:32, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2022 2:22 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-05-01 13:00, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2022 1:33 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So which categories are you claiming are involved? Claiming
>>>>>>>>>>>>> something is a 'category error' means nothing if you don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> specify the actual categories involved.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> My original thinking was that (1) and (2) and the Liar
>>>>>>>>>>>> Paradox all demonstrate the exact same error. I only have
>>>>>>>>>>>> considered (3) in recent years, prior to that I never heard
>>>>>>>>>>>> of (3).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The category error would be that none of them is in the
>>>>>>>>>>>> category of truth bearers. For Gödel's G and Tarski's p it
>>>>>>>>>>>> would mean that the category error is that G and p are not
>>>>>>>>>>>> logic sentences.
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_(mathematical_logic)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And how can you possibly justify your claim that Gödel's G is
>>>>>>>>>>> not a truth bearer?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Do I have to say the same thing 500 times before you bother to
>>>>>>>>>> notice that I said it once?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>>>>>> similar undecidability proof
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Therefore LP ↔ ~True(LP) can be used for a similar
>>>>>>>>>> undecidability proof, and LP ↔ ~True(LP) is clearly
>>>>>>>>>> semantically ill-formed.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)).
>>>>>>>>>> LP = not(true(LP)).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
>>>>>>>>>> false. // false means semantically ill-formed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And what does any of the above have to do with what I state
>>>>>>>>> below? That's your faulty attempt at expressing The Liar in
>>>>>>>>> Prolog, which has nothing to do with Gödel's G. G has *a
>>>>>>>>> relationship* to The Liar, but G is *very* different from The
>>>>>>>>> Liar in crucial ways.
>>>>>>>> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>>>> similar
>>>>>>>> undecidability proof
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Therfore the liar paradox can likewise be used for a similar
>>>>>>>> undecidability proof, nitwit.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I would not call you a nitwit except that you so persistently
>>>>>>>> make sure to ignore my key points, thus probably making you a
>>>>>>>> jackass rather than a nitwit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And again, you snipped all of the
>>>>>>
>>>>>> God damned attempt to get away with the dishonest dodge of the
>>>>>> strawman error.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>> similar undecidability proof
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you not know what the word "every" means?
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you understand the difference between 'close relationship' and
>>>>> 'the same'?
>>>>
>>>> You freaking dishonest bastard
>>>
>>> The only one being dishonest here is you as you keep snipping the
>>> substance of my post.
>>>
>>> Gödel claims there is a *close relationship* between The Liar and G.
>>> He most certainly does *not* claim that they are the same. (That one
>>> can construct similar proofs which bear a similar close relationship
>>> to other antinomies is hardly relevant since it is The Liar which is
>>> under discussion).
>>>
>>> There are two crucial differences between G and The Liar:
>>>
>>> (a) G does *not* assert its own unprovability whereas The Liar *does*
>>> assert its own falsity.
>>>
>>> (b) G is most definitely a truth-bearer even if The Liar is not.
>>>
>>> Your claim the Gödel's theorem is a 'category error' is predicated on
>>> the fact that you don't grasp (b) above. I'm not going to retype my
>>> explanation for this as I have already given it in a previous post.
>>> You're more than welcome to go back and read that post. Unless you
>>> actually have some comment on that explanation, there's no point
>>> repeating yourself.
>>>
>>> André
>>>
>>
>> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>> undecidability proof
>>
>> and the Liar Paradox is and is an epistemological antinomy you lying
>> bastard.
>>
>
> So, there is a difference between being used for and being just like.

sufficiently equivalent

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Pages:12345678
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor