Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

First study the enemy. Seek weakness. -- Romulan Commander, "Balance of Terror", stardate 1709.2


computers / comp.ai.philosophy / Re: Is this correct Prolog?

SubjectAuthor
* Is this correct Prolog?olcott
+* Re: Is this correct Prolog?Richard Damon
|+* Re: Is this correct Prolog?olcott
||`* Re: Is this correct Prolog?Richard Damon
|| `* Re: Is this correct Prolog?olcott
||  `* Re: Is this correct Prolog?Richard Damon
||   `* Re: Is this correct Prolog?olcott
||    `* Re: Is this correct Prolog?Richard Damon
||     `* Re: Is this correct Prolog?olcott
||      +* Re: Is this correct Prolog?Jeff Barnett
||      |+* Re: Is this correct Prolog?olcott
||      ||`- Re: Is this correct Prolog?Richard Damon
||      |`* Re: Is this correct Prolog?Mr Flibble
||      | +- Re: Is this correct Prolog?polcott
||      | +- Re: Is this correct Prolog?Richard Damon
||      | `- Re: Is this correct Prolog?Jeff Barnett
||      +* Re: Is this correct Prolog?Richard Damon
||      |`* Re: Is this correct Prolog?olcott
||      | `- Re: Is this correct Prolog?Richard Damon
||      `* Re: Is this correct Prolog?olcott
||       `* Re: Is this correct Prolog?Richard Damon
||        `* Re: Is this correct Prolog?olcott
||         `- Re: Is this correct Prolog?Richard Damon
|`* Re: Is this correct Prolog?olcott
| `* Re: Is this correct Prolog?olcott
|  +* Re: Is this correct Prolog?olcott
|  |`* Re: Is this correct Prolog?olcott
|  | `* Re: Is this correct Prolog?olcott
|  |  +- Re: Is this correct Prolog?Richard Damon
|  |  `* Re: Is this correct Prolog?olcott
|  |   `* Re: Is this correct Prolog?André G. Isaak
|  |    `* Re: Is this correct Prolog?olcott
|  |     +- Re: Is this correct Prolog?Richard Damon
|  |     `* Re: Is this correct Prolog?olcott
|  |      +* Re: Is this correct Prolog?André G. Isaak
|  |      |+* Re: Is this correct Prolog?olcott
|  |      ||+* Re: Is this correct Prolog?Richard Damon
|  |      |||`* Re: Is this correct Prolog?olcott
|  |      ||| `* Re: Is this correct Prolog?Richard Damon
|  |      |||  +- Re: Is this correct Prolog?André G. Isaak
|  |      |||  `* Re: Is this correct Prolog?olcott
|  |      |||   `* Re: Is this correct Prolog?Richard Damon
|  |      |||    `* Re: Is this correct Prolog?olcott
|  |      |||     `* Re: Is this correct Prolog?Richard Damon
|  |      |||      `* Re: Is this correct Prolog?olcott
|  |      |||       +- Re: Is this correct Prolog?André G. Isaak
|  |      |||       `* Re: Is this correct Prolog?Richard Damon
|  |      |||        `* Re: Is this correct Prolog?olcott
|  |      |||         +- Re: Is this correct Prolog?André G. Isaak
|  |      |||         `* Re: Is this correct Prolog?Richard Damon
|  |      |||          `* Re: Is this correct Prolog?olcott
|  |      |||           `- Re: Is this correct Prolog?Richard Damon
|  |      ||`* Re: Is this correct Prolog?André G. Isaak
|  |      || +* Re: Is this correct Prolog?olcott
|  |      || |`* Re: Is this correct Prolog?André G. Isaak
|  |      || | `* Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ André is provenolcott
|  |      || |  `* Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ André is provenAndré G. Isaak
|  |      || |   `- Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ André is provenolcott
|  |      || `* Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ André is provenolcott
|  |      ||  `* Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ André is provenRichard Damon
|  |      ||   `- Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ André is provenolcott
|  |      |`- Re: Is this correct Prolog?olcott
|  |      `- Re: Is this correct Prolog?Richard Damon
|  `* Re: Is this correct Prolog?olcott
|   `- Re: Is this correct Prolog?André G. Isaak
+* Re: Is this correct Prolog?olcott
|`* Re: Is this correct Prolog?Richard Damon
| `* Re: Is this correct Prolog?olcott
|  `* Re: Is this correct Prolog?Richard Damon
|   `* Re: Is this correct Prolog?olcott
|    `- Re: Is this correct Prolog?Richard Damon
+* Re: Is this correct Prolog?olcott
|`* Re: Is this correct Prolog?Aleksy Grabowski
| `* Re: Is this correct Prolog?olcott
|  `* Re: Is this correct Prolog?Aleksy Grabowski
|   `* Re: Is this correct Prolog?olcott
|    `* Re: Is this correct Prolog?Aleksy Grabowski
|     `* Re: Is this correct Prolog?olcott
|      +* Re: Is this correct Prolog?Aleksy Grabowski
|      |`* Re: Is this correct Prolog?olcott
|      | `* Re: Is this correct Prolog?Aleksy Grabowski
|      |  `- Re: Is this correct Prolog?olcott
|      `* Re: Is this correct Prolog?Jeff Barnett
|       +* Re: Is this correct Prolog?Mr Flibble
|       |`- Re: Is this correct Prolog?olcott
|       `* Re: Is this correct Prolog?olcott
|        `* Re: Is this correct Prolog?Richard Damon
|         `* Re: Is this correct Prolog?Aleksy Grabowski
|          +* Re: Is this correct Prolog?Ben
|          |`* Re: Is this correct Prolog?olcott
|          | +* Re: Is this correct Prolog?Ben
|          | |`* Re: Is this correct Prolog?olcott
|          | | +* Re: Is this correct Prolog?Richard Damon
|          | | |`* Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ]olcott
|          | | | `* Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ]Richard Damon
|          | | |  +* Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ]olcott
|          | | |  |`- Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ]Richard Damon
|          | | |  `- Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ]olcott
|          | | `- Re: Is this correct Prolog?Ben
|          | `* Re: Is this correct Prolog?André G. Isaak
|          |  +* Re: Is this correct Prolog?olcott
|          |  `* Re: Is this correct Prolog?Jeff Barnett
|          `* Re: Is this correct Prolog?olcott
`* Re: Is this correct Prolog?olcott

Pages:123456
Re: Is this correct Prolog?

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

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8562&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8562

 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?

<Q56dnS17EP9PnvL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8563&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8563

 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/computers/article-flat.php?id=8564&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8564

 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?

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

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8565&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8565

 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?

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

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8566&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8566

 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/computers/article-flat.php?id=8567&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8567

 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

Re: Is this correct Prolog?

<t4n2g6$osc$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8568&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8568

 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 17:44:20 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 72
Message-ID: <t4n2g6$osc$1@dont-email.me>
References: <qcOdndRse-RjQ_H_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<UOGdnc__htYie_D_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4kp78$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$1@dont-email.me>
<Q56dnS17EP9PnvL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t4n23b$mbv$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 22:44:23 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="d3e0e423381921f0d6386f2137e81510";
logging-data="25484"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/aETs5l55tPzxEvOXPkDrD"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:i1h3BM99QgQmuVL/Vrm12RGKZfk=
In-Reply-To: <t4n23b$mbv$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: olcott - Sun, 1 May 2022 22:44 UTC

On 5/1/2022 5:37 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> 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
>

I just proved that you are a lying bastard. I can very easily forgive
and forget, what I will not do is tolerate mistreatment

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

The Liar Paradox is an epistemological antinomy

Translating this to a syllogism

All X are a Y
The LP is and X
Therefore the LP is a Y.

That you disagree with this makes you a 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?

<t4n49s$4nv$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8569&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8569

 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 17:15:06 -0600
Organization: Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism
Lines: 112
Message-ID: <t4n49s$4nv$1@dont-email.me>
References: <qcOdndRse-RjQ_H_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t4kp78$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$1@dont-email.me>
<Q56dnS17EP9PnvL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t4n23b$mbv$1@dont-email.me>
<t4n2g6$osc$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 23:15:08 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="14bcd4ff359eac72d19c1e3678a0d1b5";
logging-data="4863"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19Ra7wkNMWZMREtetUL7WJW"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:3vxjCodXU/A31n5XdHvT+wP7qso=
In-Reply-To: <t4n2g6$osc$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: André G. Isaak - Sun, 1 May 2022 23:15 UTC

On 2022-05-01 16:44, olcott wrote:
> On 5/1/2022 5:37 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> 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
>>
>
> I just proved that you are a lying bastard. I can very easily forgive
> and forget, what I will not do is tolerate mistreatment
>
>
> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
> undecidability proof
>
> The Liar Paradox is an epistemological antinomy
>
> Translating this to a syllogism
>
> All X are a Y
> The LP is and X
> Therefore the LP is a Y.
>
> That you disagree with this makes you a lying bastard.

For christ's sake. You can't even see the irrelevance of the above.

Let's consider what the X and Y are in the above:

X would be 'Is an Antinomy'

Since Gödel was *already* talking about The Liar, Y is "Can be used to
form an undecidability proof in a similar manner as Gödel has done with
The Liar"

So you've just proved that The Liar can be used to form a similar proof
as the one Gödel forms using The Liar.

Do you feel proud of yourself?

What you keep ignoring, which were the points my posts were actually
about was exactly *what* sort of relationship holds between The Liar and
Gödel's G. It is *not* one of identity.

There is a close relationship between the Book of Genesis and the Epic
of Gilgamesh.

Gilgamesh figures prominently in the Epic of Gilgamesh.

Therefore Gilgamesh figures prominently in the Book of Genesis.

According to the Epic of Gilgamesh, a savage can become civilized by
having sex with a prostitute.

Therefore the Book of Genesis advocates forcing the uncivilized to have
sex with prostitutes.

Do you see a problem with the above arguments? Saying there is a 'close
relationship' between two things doesn't mean you can conclude
*anything* about one based on the other. You need to consider exactly
*what* the relationship actually is. What are the similarities and what
are the differences? You insist on treating the two as if they were the
same thing. They aren't, anymore than the Book of Genesis and the Epic
of Gilgamesh are the same thing.

André

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

Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ André is proven to be a liar ]

<t4n4a6$43j$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8570&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8570

 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?_[_André_is_proven_
to_be_a_liar_]
Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 18:15:17 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 69
Message-ID: <t4n4a6$43j$1@dont-email.me>
References: <qcOdndRse-RjQ_H_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<UOGdnc__htYie_D_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4kp78$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$1@dont-email.me>
<Q56dnS17EP9PnvL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t4n23b$mbv$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 23:15:18 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="d3e0e423381921f0d6386f2137e81510";
logging-data="4211"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/Jcvg0XHcpq38w7hrF1bhN"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:SCLch9RSq60Ph2A/iLfcNCwbYuc=
In-Reply-To: <t4n23b$mbv$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: olcott - Sun, 1 May 2022 23:15 UTC

On 5/1/2022 5:37 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> 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
>

I just proved that you are a lying bastard. I can very easily forgive
and forget, what I will not do is tolerate mistreatment

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

The Liar Paradox is an epistemological antinomy

Translating this to a syllogism

All X are a Y
The LP is and X
Therefore the LP is a Y.

That you disagree with this makes you a 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?

<2zEbK.452500$t2Bb.336668@fx98.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8571&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8571

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy comp.lang.prolog
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.szaf.org!news.enyo.de!news.uni-stuttgart.de!npeer.as286.net!npeer-ng0.as286.net!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer03.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>
<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> <t4n275$mr8$1@dont-email.me>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <t4n275$mr8$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 126
Message-ID: <2zEbK.452500$t2Bb.336668@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 19:18:23 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 7170
 by: Richard Damon - Sun, 1 May 2022 23:18 UTC

On 5/1/22 6:39 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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
>

You can PROVE it?

Note, that means you need to start with the ACTUAL G that Godel used,
not some "simplified" version. So you better know what all that means.

Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ André is proven to be a liar ]

<KBEbK.452501$t2Bb.356127@fx98.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8572&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8572

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy comp.lang.prolog
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!npeer.as286.net!npeer-ng0.as286.net!peer03.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer02.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?_[_André_is_proven_
to_be_a_liar_]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.lang.prolog
References: <qcOdndRse-RjQ_H_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$1@dont-email.me>
<Q56dnS17EP9PnvL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t4n23b$mbv$1@dont-email.me>
<t4n4a6$43j$1@dont-email.me>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <t4n4a6$43j$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 69
Message-ID: <KBEbK.452501$t2Bb.356127@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 19:21:16 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 4409
 by: Richard Damon - Sun, 1 May 2022 23:21 UTC

On 5/1/22 7:15 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/1/2022 5:37 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> 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
>>
>
> I just proved that you are a lying bastard. I can very easily forgive
> and forget, what I will not do is tolerate mistreatment
>
>
> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
> undecidability proof
>
> The Liar Paradox is an epistemological antinomy
>
> Translating this to a syllogism
>
> All X are a Y
> The LP is and X
> Therefore the LP is a Y.
>
> That you disagree with this makes you a lying bastard.
>
As Andre pointed out, when you look at the statement to see what the
terms are, you just agreed with him and proved that YOU are the Liar.

Re: Is this correct Prolog?

<t4n4vu$8mt$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8573&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8573

 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 17:26:52 -0600
Organization: Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <t4n4vu$8mt$1@dont-email.me>
References: <qcOdndRse-RjQ_H_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<EKKdnasbsInXjPP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4l65c$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> <t4n275$mr8$1@dont-email.me>
<2zEbK.452500$t2Bb.336668@fx98.iad>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 23:26:54 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="14bcd4ff359eac72d19c1e3678a0d1b5";
logging-data="8925"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19DmeCF4UFISXny3y1WGQY1"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:0sp02G+5Mj7YI9+Ohqofe22lz8E=
In-Reply-To: <2zEbK.452500$t2Bb.336668@fx98.iad>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: André G. Isaak - Sun, 1 May 2022 23:26 UTC

On 2022-05-01 17:18, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/1/22 6:39 PM, olcott wrote:

>> sufficiently equivalent
>>
>
> You can PROVE it?

Presumably he will point to the (nonexistent) footnote where Gödel
claims that The Liar and G are "sufficiently equivalent" rather than the
(actual) footnote where Gödel rather explicitly denies this.

André

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

Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ André is proven to be a liar ]

<ztGdnVMB0K0ghfL_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8574&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8574

 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!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 01 May 2022 18:33:17 -0500
Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 18:33:16 -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?_[_André_is_proven_
to_be_a_liar_]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.lang.prolog
References: <qcOdndRse-RjQ_H_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<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$1@dont-email.me>
<Q56dnS17EP9PnvL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t4n23b$mbv$1@dont-email.me>
<t4n2g6$osc$1@dont-email.me> <t4n49s$4nv$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <t4n49s$4nv$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <ztGdnVMB0K0ghfL_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 152
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-tskRWmZWv5pNQF3YGyps7oQH+SLRnUfrTZWKRM0uA6BYO+aP/Tpr3ZaxXdIGRRencA9kHN1tI7NTjRQ!FZ6OHe6//yATRADy/tsaP1PqXoEBML8jQSw5G3tCAWOTb7IVtB69oU4BHQd9aGL86dB5SzKJcFE=
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: 7489
 by: olcott - Sun, 1 May 2022 23:33 UTC

On 5/1/2022 6:15 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-05-01 16:44, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/1/2022 5:37 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>> I just proved that you are a lying bastard. I can very easily forgive
>> and forget, what I will not do is tolerate mistreatment
>>
>>
>> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>> undecidability proof
>>
>> The Liar Paradox is an epistemological antinomy
>>
>> Translating this to a syllogism
>>
>> All X are a Y
>> The LP is and X
>> Therefore the LP is a Y.
>>
>> That you disagree with this makes you a lying bastard.
>
> For christ's sake. You can't even see the irrelevance of the above.
>
> Let's consider what the X and Y are in the above:
>
> X would be 'Is an Antinomy'
>

Not quite.
X = is an epistemological antinomy

> Since Gödel was *already* talking about The Liar, Y is "Can be used to
> form an undecidability proof in a similar manner as Gödel has done with
> The Liar"
>
> So you've just proved that The Liar can be used to form a similar proof
> as the one Gödel forms using The Liar.
>
> Do you feel proud of yourself?
>
> What you keep ignoring, which were the points my posts were actually
> about was exactly *what* sort of relationship holds between The Liar and
> Gödel's G. It is *not* one of identity.
>

Of course not nitwit, you know that I mean equivalence.

What kind of stupid fool would believe that I mean that G and LP are one
and the same thing? I know, I know, a jackass that wants to play head
games.

> There is a close relationship between the Book of Genesis and the Epic
> of Gilgamesh.

He says two different things about the Liar Paradox Jackass.
(1) About the Liar Paradox in particular.
(2) About the entire category that the Liar Paradox belongs:
epistemological antinomies.

If every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
undecidability proof then the liar paradox can be used for a similar
undecidability proof.

X = set of epistemological antinomies.
Y = can be used for a similar undecidability proof.

All X are Y
The LP is an X
Therefore the LP is a Y.

You have known this all along you merely get sadistic pleasure by
gaslighting me. That may be the only reason why anyone here (besides
Malcolm) talks to me.

https://www.nbcnews.com/better/health/what-gaslighting-how-do-you-know-if-it-s-happening-ncna890866

>
> Gilgamesh figures prominently in the Epic of Gilgamesh.
>
> Therefore Gilgamesh figures prominently in the Book of Genesis.
>
> According to the Epic of Gilgamesh, a savage can become civilized by
> having sex with a prostitute.
>
> Therefore the Book of Genesis advocates forcing the uncivilized to have
> sex with prostitutes.
>
> Do you see a problem with the above arguments? Saying there is a 'close
> relationship' between two things doesn't mean you can conclude
> *anything* about one based on the other. You need to consider exactly
> *what* the relationship actually is. What are the similarities and what
> are the differences? You insist on treating the two as if they were the
> same thing. They aren't, anymore than the Book of Genesis and the Epic
> of Gilgamesh are the same thing.
>
> 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? [ André is proven to be a liar ]

<t4n613$eld$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8575&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8575

 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?_[_André_is_proven_
to_be_a_liar_]
Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 17:44:33 -0600
Organization: Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism
Lines: 142
Message-ID: <t4n613$eld$1@dont-email.me>
References: <qcOdndRse-RjQ_H_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t4l65c$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$1@dont-email.me>
<Q56dnS17EP9PnvL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t4n23b$mbv$1@dont-email.me>
<t4n2g6$osc$1@dont-email.me> <t4n49s$4nv$1@dont-email.me>
<ztGdnVMB0K0ghfL_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@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 23:44:35 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="14bcd4ff359eac72d19c1e3678a0d1b5";
logging-data="15021"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18NDmJmboVHEsiD8m+uV4XT"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ABWvTKgCYRPXJ3XoYoi6PgnrqzE=
In-Reply-To: <ztGdnVMB0K0ghfL_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: André G. Isaak - Sun, 1 May 2022 23:44 UTC

On 2022-05-01 17:33, olcott wrote:
> On 5/1/2022 6:15 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2022-05-01 16:44, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/1/2022 5:37 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>> I just proved that you are a lying bastard. I can very easily forgive
>>> and forget, what I will not do is tolerate mistreatment
>>>
>>>
>>> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>>> undecidability proof
>>>
>>> The Liar Paradox is an epistemological antinomy
>>>
>>> Translating this to a syllogism
>>>
>>> All X are a Y
>>> The LP is and X
>>> Therefore the LP is a Y.
>>>
>>> That you disagree with this makes you a lying bastard.
>>
>> For christ's sake. You can't even see the irrelevance of the above.
>>
>> Let's consider what the X and Y are in the above:
>>
>> X would be 'Is an Antinomy'
>>
>
> Not quite.
> X = is an epistemological antinomy
>
>> Since Gödel was *already* talking about The Liar, Y is "Can be used to
>> form an undecidability proof in a similar manner as Gödel has done
>> with The Liar"
>>
>> So you've just proved that The Liar can be used to form a similar
>> proof as the one Gödel forms using The Liar.
>>
>> Do you feel proud of yourself?
>>
>> What you keep ignoring, which were the points my posts were actually
>> about was exactly *what* sort of relationship holds between The Liar
>> and Gödel's G. It is *not* one of identity.
>>
>
> Of course not nitwit, you know that I mean equivalence.

Equivalence with respect to *what*?

If two things are equivalent but not identical, it means they are
equivalent with respect to some things but not equivalent with respect
to others.

The entire point of my posts has been to clarify some senses in which
the two are *not* equivalent. But instead of addressing that you keep
trying to prove that The Liar is in the same class as The Liar.

> What kind of stupid fool would believe that I mean that G and LP are one
> and the same thing? I know, I know, a jackass that wants to play head
> games.
>
>> There is a close relationship between the Book of Genesis and the Epic
>> of Gilgamesh.
>
> He says two different things about the Liar Paradox Jackass.
> (1) About the Liar Paradox in particular.
> (2) About the entire category that the Liar Paradox belongs:
> epistemological antinomies.

Yes, and if the LP is *not* equivalent to G with respect to X, then none
of the analogous sentences based on other antinomies would be equivalent
with respect to X either.

> If every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
> undecidability proof then the liar paradox can be used for a similar
> undecidability proof.
>
> X = set of epistemological antinomies.
> Y = can be used for a similar undecidability proof.
>
> All X are Y
> The LP is an X
> Therefore the LP is a Y.

Yes. The Liar and the Liar can be used for similar undecidability
proofs. I have no idea what it is you hope to achieve by arguing for a
truism.

André

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

Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ André is proven to be a liar ]

<Fa-dnbqlHobogPL_nZ2dnUU7_8xQAAAA@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8576&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8576

 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!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 01 May 2022 18:53:25 -0500
Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 18:53:24 -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?_[_André_is_proven_
to_be_a_liar_]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.lang.prolog
References: <qcOdndRse-RjQ_H_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<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$1@dont-email.me>
<Q56dnS17EP9PnvL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t4n23b$mbv$1@dont-email.me>
<t4n2g6$osc$1@dont-email.me> <t4n49s$4nv$1@dont-email.me>
<ztGdnVMB0K0ghfL_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <t4n613$eld$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <t4n613$eld$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <Fa-dnbqlHobogPL_nZ2dnUU7_8xQAAAA@giganews.com>
Lines: 150
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-TJuoJgZcj97bL58tLFmnTKjtrvG7h8YWt53YSKbB3fbrai+HFlo8RDLOeMbWNBabU1FqqwG5RrnoQ8d!VY/Yhs3AFDHpl/Z2lmyh/gaNcyuJ72e+WQBOCSrcMro4jrlLSeZhmD9RTRj8ZU0PUJqjh+uY3v0=
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: 7558
 by: olcott - Sun, 1 May 2022 23:53 UTC

On 5/1/2022 6:44 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-05-01 17:33, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/1/2022 6:15 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-05-01 16:44, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/1/2022 5:37 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I just proved that you are a lying bastard. I can very easily
>>>> forgive and forget, what I will not do is tolerate mistreatment
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>>>> undecidability proof
>>>>
>>>> The Liar Paradox is an epistemological antinomy
>>>>
>>>> Translating this to a syllogism
>>>>
>>>> All X are a Y
>>>> The LP is and X
>>>> Therefore the LP is a Y.
>>>>
>>>> That you disagree with this makes you a lying bastard.
>>>
>>> For christ's sake. You can't even see the irrelevance of the above.
>>>
>>> Let's consider what the X and Y are in the above:
>>>
>>> X would be 'Is an Antinomy'
>>>
>>
>> Not quite.
>> X = is an epistemological antinomy
>>
>>> Since Gödel was *already* talking about The Liar, Y is "Can be used
>>> to form an undecidability proof in a similar manner as Gödel has done
>>> with The Liar"
>>>
>>> So you've just proved that The Liar can be used to form a similar
>>> proof as the one Gödel forms using The Liar.
>>>
>>> Do you feel proud of yourself?
>>>
>>> What you keep ignoring, which were the points my posts were actually
>>> about was exactly *what* sort of relationship holds between The Liar
>>> and Gödel's G. It is *not* one of identity.
>>>
>>
>> Of course not nitwit, you know that I mean equivalence.
>
> Equivalence with respect to *what*?
>
> If two things are equivalent but not identical, it means they are
> equivalent with respect to some things but not equivalent with respect
> to others.
>
> The entire point of my posts has been to clarify some senses in which
> the two are *not* equivalent. But instead of addressing that you keep
> trying to prove that The Liar is in the same class as The Liar.
>
>> What kind of stupid fool would believe that I mean that G and LP are
>> one and the same thing? I know, I know, a jackass that wants to play
>> head games.
>>
>>> There is a close relationship between the Book of Genesis and the
>>> Epic of Gilgamesh.
>>
>> He says two different things about the Liar Paradox Jackass.
>> (1) About the Liar Paradox in particular.
>> (2) About the entire category that the Liar Paradox belongs:
>> epistemological antinomies.
>
> Yes, and if the LP is *not* equivalent to G with respect to X, then none
> of the analogous sentences based on other antinomies would be equivalent
> with respect to X either.
>
>> If every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>> undecidability proof then the liar paradox can be used for a similar
>> undecidability proof.
>>
>> X = set of epistemological antinomies.
>> Y = can be used for a similar undecidability proof.
> >
>> All X are Y
>> The LP is an X
>> Therefore the LP is a Y.
>
> Yes. The Liar and the Liar can be used for similar undecidability
> proofs. I have no idea what it is you hope to achieve by arguing for a
> truism.
>
> André
>
>

See that I backed you into a corner to force you to quit lying.

--
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? [ André is proven to be a liar ]

<t4na7t$5s4$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8577&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8577

 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?_[_André_is_proven_
to_be_a_liar_]
Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 19:56:28 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 83
Message-ID: <t4na7t$5s4$1@dont-email.me>
References: <qcOdndRse-RjQ_H_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<EKKdnasbsInXjPP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4l65c$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$1@dont-email.me>
<Q56dnS17EP9PnvL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t4n23b$mbv$1@dont-email.me>
<t4n4a6$43j$1@dont-email.me> <KBEbK.452501$t2Bb.356127@fx98.iad>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 00:56:29 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="d3e0e423381921f0d6386f2137e81510";
logging-data="6020"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18wrMhJ0r/TfZJZHj1hGd7e"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:WGuWUYZo406yQqVk8Yd/VscYNhM=
In-Reply-To: <KBEbK.452501$t2Bb.356127@fx98.iad>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: olcott - Mon, 2 May 2022 00:56 UTC

On 5/1/2022 6:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/1/22 7:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/1/2022 5:37 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>> I just proved that you are a lying bastard. I can very easily forgive
>> and forget, what I will not do is tolerate mistreatment
>>
>>
>> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>> undecidability proof
>>
>> The Liar Paradox is an epistemological antinomy
>>
>> Translating this to a syllogism
>>
>> All X are a Y
>> The LP is and X
>> Therefore the LP is a Y.
>>
>> That you disagree with this makes you a lying bastard.
>>
> As Andre pointed out, when you look at the statement to see what the
> terms are, you just agreed with him and proved that YOU are the Liar.

I backed him into a corner and forced him to stop lying:

On 5/1/2022 6:44 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> Yes. The Liar and the Liar can be used for similar undecidability
> proofs. I have no idea what it is you hope to achieve by arguing for a
> truism.

Anyone that abuses me gets a metaphorical uppercut to the jaw.

--
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?

<t4nabt$5s4$2@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8578&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8578

 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 19:58:35 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 141
Message-ID: <t4nabt$5s4$2@dont-email.me>
References: <qcOdndRse-RjQ_H_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<EKKdnasbsInXjPP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4l65c$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> <t4n275$mr8$1@dont-email.me>
<2zEbK.452500$t2Bb.336668@fx98.iad>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 00:58:37 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="d3e0e423381921f0d6386f2137e81510";
logging-data="6020"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18kOGLkq+umMRqKi8+qDeTy"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:DYpSfuO23/5zTAM2/4aV2m9UAbw=
In-Reply-To: <2zEbK.452500$t2Bb.336668@fx98.iad>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: olcott - Mon, 2 May 2022 00:58 UTC

On 5/1/2022 6:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/1/22 6:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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
>>
>
> You can PROVE it?
>

I backed André into a corner and forced him to quit lying

On 5/1/2022 6:44 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> Yes. The Liar and the Liar can be used for similar undecidability
> proofs. I have no idea what it is you hope to achieve by arguing for a
> truism.

> Note, that means you need to start with the ACTUAL G that Godel used,
> not some "simplified" version. So you better know what all that means.

--
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?

<CwGbK.162528$Kdf.21366@fx96.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8579&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8579

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy comp.lang.prolog
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!news.swapon.de!news.uzoreto.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed8.news.xs4all.nl!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer02.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>
<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> <t4n275$mr8$1@dont-email.me>
<2zEbK.452500$t2Bb.336668@fx98.iad> <t4nabt$5s4$2@dont-email.me>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <t4nabt$5s4$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 194
Message-ID: <CwGbK.162528$Kdf.21366@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 21:32:20 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 9353
 by: Richard Damon - Mon, 2 May 2022 01:32 UTC

On 5/1/22 8:58 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/1/2022 6:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/1/22 6:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>> You can PROVE it?
>>
>
> I backed André into a corner and forced him to quit lying
>

So, No. Note a trimming to change meaning, the original was:

>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>
>
> You can PROVE it?


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Is this correct Prolog?

<t4ndjk$sn3$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8580&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8580

 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 20:53:53 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 174
Message-ID: <t4ndjk$sn3$1@dont-email.me>
References: <qcOdndRse-RjQ_H_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lI-dnepDd-0n7PP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t4m2b2$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> <t4n275$mr8$1@dont-email.me>
<2zEbK.452500$t2Bb.336668@fx98.iad> <t4nabt$5s4$2@dont-email.me>
<CwGbK.162528$Kdf.21366@fx96.iad>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 01:53:56 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="d3e0e423381921f0d6386f2137e81510";
logging-data="29411"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+le1z4wXAFXog3AwSngqzo"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:9FQboO864sqT49vvHObvarfBViI=
In-Reply-To: <CwGbK.162528$Kdf.21366@fx96.iad>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: olcott - Mon, 2 May 2022 01:53 UTC

On 5/1/2022 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/1/22 8:58 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/1/2022 6:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/1/22 6:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>> You can PROVE it?
>>>
>>
>> I backed André into a corner and forced him to quit lying
>>
>
> So, No. Note a trimming to change meaning, the original was:
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>
>>
>> You can PROVE it?
>
> So, clearly the requested proof was that about USING the epistemolgocal
> antinomy and it being just like one so not a Truth Bearer. Note, the
> comment that you claimed you backed him into isn't about that, so you
> are just proving yourself to be a deciver.
>
>
>
>
>> On 5/1/2022 6:44 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>  > Yes. The Liar and the Liar can be used for similar undecidability
>>  > proofs. I have no idea what it is you hope to achieve by arguing for a
>>  > truism.
>>
>
> Nice out of context quoting, showing again you are the deciver.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Is this correct Prolog?

<n8HbK.388178$f2a5.198381@fx48.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8581&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8581

 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!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer03.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx48.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>
<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> <t4n275$mr8$1@dont-email.me>
<2zEbK.452500$t2Bb.336668@fx98.iad> <t4nabt$5s4$2@dont-email.me>
<CwGbK.162528$Kdf.21366@fx96.iad> <t4ndjk$sn3$1@dont-email.me>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <t4ndjk$sn3$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 197
Message-ID: <n8HbK.388178$f2a5.198381@fx48.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 22:14:40 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 10279
 by: Richard Damon - Mon, 2 May 2022 02:14 UTC

On 5/1/22 9:53 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/1/2022 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/1/22 8:58 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/1/2022 6:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/1/22 6:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You can PROVE it?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I backed André into a corner and forced him to quit lying
>>>
>>
>> So, No. Note a trimming to change meaning, the original was:
>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>> You can PROVE it?
>>
>> So, clearly the requested proof was that about USING the
>> epistemolgocal antinomy and it being just like one so not a Truth
>> Bearer. Note, the comment that you claimed you backed him into isn't
>> about that, so you are just proving yourself to be a deciver.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 5/1/2022 6:44 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>  > Yes. The Liar and the Liar can be used for similar undecidability
>>>  > proofs. I have no idea what it is you hope to achieve by arguing
>>> for a
>>>  > truism.
>>>
>>
>> Nice out of context quoting, showing again you are the deciver.
>
> If you look at the full context of many messages you will see that he
> kept continuing to deny that the Liar Paradox can be used for similar
> undecidability proofs at least a half dozen times. Only when I made
> denying this look utterly ridiculously foolish did he finally quit lying
> about it.
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Is this correct Prolog?

<t4nf25$51n$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8582&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8582

 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 21:18:42 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 214
Message-ID: <t4nf25$51n$1@dont-email.me>
References: <qcOdndRse-RjQ_H_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t4m2b2$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> <t4n275$mr8$1@dont-email.me>
<2zEbK.452500$t2Bb.336668@fx98.iad> <t4nabt$5s4$2@dont-email.me>
<CwGbK.162528$Kdf.21366@fx96.iad> <t4ndjk$sn3$1@dont-email.me>
<n8HbK.388178$f2a5.198381@fx48.iad>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 02:18:45 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="d3e0e423381921f0d6386f2137e81510";
logging-data="5175"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/HJ5/5aetpOrT+VoZG4NwB"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:zxk8gcWl16t5fVIH2fPEEsyhtHM=
In-Reply-To: <n8HbK.388178$f2a5.198381@fx48.iad>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: olcott - Mon, 2 May 2022 02:18 UTC

On 5/1/2022 9:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 5/1/22 9:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/1/2022 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/1/22 8:58 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/1/2022 6:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/1/22 6:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You can PROVE it?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I backed André into a corner and forced him to quit lying
>>>>
>>>
>>> So, No. Note a trimming to change meaning, the original was:
>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You can PROVE it?
>>>
>>> So, clearly the requested proof was that about USING the
>>> epistemolgocal antinomy and it being just like one so not a Truth
>>> Bearer. Note, the comment that you claimed you backed him into isn't
>>> about that, so you are just proving yourself to be a deciver.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 5/1/2022 6:44 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>  > Yes. The Liar and the Liar can be used for similar undecidability
>>>>  > proofs. I have no idea what it is you hope to achieve by arguing
>>>> for a
>>>>  > truism.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nice out of context quoting, showing again you are the deciver.
>>
>> If you look at the full context of many messages you will see that he
>> kept continuing to deny that the Liar Paradox can be used for similar
>> undecidability proofs at least a half dozen times. Only when I made
>> denying this look utterly ridiculously foolish did he finally quit
>> lying about it.
>>
>
> No, he says that the use of the Liar Paradox in the form that Godel does
> doesn't make the Godel Sentence a non-truth holder.
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Is this correct Prolog?

<t4ng4i$c7j$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8583&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8583

 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 20:37:04 -0600
Organization: Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <t4ng4i$c7j$1@dont-email.me>
References: <qcOdndRse-RjQ_H_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<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> <t4n275$mr8$1@dont-email.me>
<2zEbK.452500$t2Bb.336668@fx98.iad> <t4nabt$5s4$2@dont-email.me>
<CwGbK.162528$Kdf.21366@fx96.iad> <t4ndjk$sn3$1@dont-email.me>
<n8HbK.388178$f2a5.198381@fx48.iad> <t4nf25$51n$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 02:37:06 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="9ff03eef2e4c6f0c4e0c9c2164c5c218";
logging-data="12531"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/TANu+kwO7fMxMY+ttvvOj"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:igOq1kjhFq0/z6U2iQ77C2WIxWs=
In-Reply-To: <t4nf25$51n$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: André G. Isaak - Mon, 2 May 2022 02:37 UTC

On 2022-05-01 20:18, olcott wrote:
> On 5/1/2022 9:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>> On 5/1/22 9:53 PM, olcott wrote:

>>> If you look at the full context of many messages you will see that he
>>> kept continuing to deny that the Liar Paradox can be used for similar
>>> undecidability proofs at least a half dozen times. Only when I made
>>> denying this look utterly ridiculously foolish did he finally quit
>>> lying about it.
>>>
>>
>> No, he says that the use of the Liar Paradox in the form that Godel
>> does doesn't make the Godel Sentence a non-truth holder.
>>
>
> If you look at the actual facts you will see that he continued to deny
> that kept continuing to deny that the Liar Paradox can be used for
> similar undecidability proofs at least a half dozen times.

I didn't so much deny that as I did claim it was vacuous and irrelevant.

Gödel draws a parallel between his proof and The Liar.

He also notes that other antinomies could be used to construct similar
proofs.

That would seem to mean that OTHER ANTINOMIES could be used to construct
similar proofs to the one he based on The Liar.

To say that The Liar can be used to construct similar proofs is just
plain silly since that's the one he was talking about to begin with.

More importantly, though, it is absolutely irrelevant to any of the
points I was making which didn't deny some relationship between G and
The Liar but concerned the exact *nature* of the relationship between G
and The Liar, points which would hold for proofs based on other
antinomies as well.

And points which you still have not addressed.

André

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

Re: Is this correct Prolog?

<HCHbK.487830$SeK9.17961@fx97.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8584&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8584

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy comp.lang.prolog
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed9.news.xs4all.nl!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!peer02.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx97.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>
<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> <t4n275$mr8$1@dont-email.me>
<2zEbK.452500$t2Bb.336668@fx98.iad> <t4nabt$5s4$2@dont-email.me>
<CwGbK.162528$Kdf.21366@fx96.iad> <t4ndjk$sn3$1@dont-email.me>
<n8HbK.388178$f2a5.198381@fx48.iad> <t4nf25$51n$1@dont-email.me>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <t4nf25$51n$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 246
Message-ID: <HCHbK.487830$SeK9.17961@fx97.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 22:47:04 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 12831
 by: Richard Damon - Mon, 2 May 2022 02:47 UTC

On 5/1/22 10:18 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/1/2022 9:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>> On 5/1/22 9:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/1/2022 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/1/22 8:58 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/1/2022 6:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/1/22 6:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can PROVE it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I backed André into a corner and forced him to quit lying
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, No. Note a trimming to change meaning, the original was:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You can PROVE it?
>>>>
>>>> So, clearly the requested proof was that about USING the
>>>> epistemolgocal antinomy and it being just like one so not a Truth
>>>> Bearer. Note, the comment that you claimed you backed him into isn't
>>>> about that, so you are just proving yourself to be a deciver.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/1/2022 6:44 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>  > Yes. The Liar and the Liar can be used for similar undecidability
>>>>>  > proofs. I have no idea what it is you hope to achieve by arguing
>>>>> for a
>>>>>  > truism.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nice out of context quoting, showing again you are the deciver.
>>>
>>> If you look at the full context of many messages you will see that he
>>> kept continuing to deny that the Liar Paradox can be used for similar
>>> undecidability proofs at least a half dozen times. Only when I made
>>> denying this look utterly ridiculously foolish did he finally quit
>>> lying about it.
>>>
>>
>> No, he says that the use of the Liar Paradox in the form that Godel
>> does doesn't make the Godel Sentence a non-truth holder.
>>
>
> If you look at the actual facts you will see that he continued to deny
> that kept continuing to deny that the Liar Paradox can be used for
> similar undecidability proofs at least a half dozen times.
>
> If you make sure to knowingly contradict the verified facts then
> Revelations 21:8 may eventually apply to you.
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Is this correct Prolog?

<t4nho0$ks6$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8585&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8585

 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 22:04:30 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 290
Message-ID: <t4nho0$ks6$1@dont-email.me>
References: <qcOdndRse-RjQ_H_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@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> <t4n275$mr8$1@dont-email.me>
<2zEbK.452500$t2Bb.336668@fx98.iad> <t4nabt$5s4$2@dont-email.me>
<CwGbK.162528$Kdf.21366@fx96.iad> <t4ndjk$sn3$1@dont-email.me>
<n8HbK.388178$f2a5.198381@fx48.iad> <t4nf25$51n$1@dont-email.me>
<HCHbK.487830$SeK9.17961@fx97.iad>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 03:04:33 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="d3e0e423381921f0d6386f2137e81510";
logging-data="21382"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19HzxSLL/0xzz4vo5kQl5Le"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:nO8TcucmyD/Y2UC6ithljDbC3sU=
In-Reply-To: <HCHbK.487830$SeK9.17961@fx97.iad>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: olcott - Mon, 2 May 2022 03:04 UTC

On 5/1/2022 9:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/1/22 10:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/1/2022 9:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> On 5/1/22 9:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/1/2022 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/1/22 8:58 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/1/2022 6:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/1/22 6:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can PROVE it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I backed André into a corner and forced him to quit lying
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So, No. Note a trimming to change meaning, the original was:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can PROVE it?
>>>>>
>>>>> So, clearly the requested proof was that about USING the
>>>>> epistemolgocal antinomy and it being just like one so not a Truth
>>>>> Bearer. Note, the comment that you claimed you backed him into
>>>>> isn't about that, so you are just proving yourself to be a deciver.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/1/2022 6:44 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>  > Yes. The Liar and the Liar can be used for similar undecidability
>>>>>>  > proofs. I have no idea what it is you hope to achieve by
>>>>>> arguing for a
>>>>>>  > truism.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nice out of context quoting, showing again you are the deciver.
>>>>
>>>> If you look at the full context of many messages you will see that
>>>> he kept continuing to deny that the Liar Paradox can be used for
>>>> similar undecidability proofs at least a half dozen times. Only when
>>>> I made denying this look utterly ridiculously foolish did he finally
>>>> quit lying about it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, he says that the use of the Liar Paradox in the form that Godel
>>> does doesn't make the Godel Sentence a non-truth holder.
>>>
>>
>> If you look at the actual facts you will see that he continued to deny
>> that kept continuing to deny that the Liar Paradox can be used for
>> similar undecidability proofs at least a half dozen times.
>>
>> If you make sure to knowingly contradict the verified facts then
>> Revelations 21:8 may eventually apply to you.
>>
>
> You mean like when he said (and you snipped):
>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Maybe you should check your OWN facts.
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Is this correct Prolog?

<t4nlk4$9r4$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8586&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8586

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy comp.lang.prolog
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!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 22:10:42 -0600
Organization: Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism
Lines: 44
Message-ID: <t4nlk4$9r4$1@dont-email.me>
References: <qcOdndRse-RjQ_H_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<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> <t4n275$mr8$1@dont-email.me>
<2zEbK.452500$t2Bb.336668@fx98.iad> <t4nabt$5s4$2@dont-email.me>
<CwGbK.162528$Kdf.21366@fx96.iad> <t4ndjk$sn3$1@dont-email.me>
<n8HbK.388178$f2a5.198381@fx48.iad> <t4nf25$51n$1@dont-email.me>
<HCHbK.487830$SeK9.17961@fx97.iad> <t4nho0$ks6$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 04:10:44 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="9ff03eef2e4c6f0c4e0c9c2164c5c218";
logging-data="10084"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX198DhcaGM4uAHRgACxPU6zw"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:KYWkHxkDxlvVg4Z12aiPoAUmZrw=
In-Reply-To: <t4nho0$ks6$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: André G. Isaak - Mon, 2 May 2022 04:10 UTC

On 2022-05-01 21:04, olcott wrote:

> He is focusing on the dishonest dodge of the strawman error by making
> sure to ignore that in another quote Gödel said that Gödel's G is
> sufficiently equivalent to the Liar Paradox on the basis that the Liar
> Paradox is an epistemological antinomy, whereas the quote he keeps
> switching back to is less clear on this point.

There is no quote where Gödel claims G is "sufficiently equivalent" to
the Liars Paradox. (And "sufficiently equivalent" for what, exactly? Is
a five dollar bill "sufficiently equivalent" to 20 quarters? It's a
meaningless question without specifying what type of equivalence you
have in mind -- equivalent value, sure. Equivalent usefulness in a
vending maching, not necessarily)

> Since I focused on correcting his mistake several times it finally got
> down to the point where it was clear that he was a lying bastard.

Since you seem to be claiming that I reject some nonexistent quote, I
can't imagine what mistake I might have made.

> I am utterly immune to gas lighting.
>
>> He is CLEARLY not saying that the Liar Paradox can't be used for this
>> sort of proof, because he talks about its form being used.
>>
>
> He continued to refer to the other quote of Gödel that is much more
> vague on the equivalence between Gödel's G as his basis that equivalence
> cannot be be determined even when I kept focusing him back on the quote
> that does assert sufficient equivalence exists. I did this six times.

What is this quote you are referring to where he asserts "sufficient
equivalence"? Unless I missed something, the quote you kept harping on
was "Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
undecidability proof". That makes no mention whatsoever of "equivalence"
(sufficient or otherwise) between The Liar and G.

André

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

Pages:123456
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor