On 4/30/2022 12:08 AM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
> On 4/29/2022 7:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/29/2022 8:29 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>> On 4/29/2022 5:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 4/29/22 6:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>>    <SNIP>
>>>
>>>>> When this is encoded in Prolog it is rejected as an infinite term
>>>>> as my paper clearly shows.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As it should, since G uses Higher Order Logic which can NOT be
>>>> properly expressed in the first order logic of Prolog.
>>>
>>> Unless Prolog has changed wildly in the last several years, it isn't
>>> even close to FOL. I remember it as a toy that could only represent
>>> and reason with Horn clauses. Can Prolog now deal with quantifiers
>>> and negation on both sides of an implication? That would be very
>>> impressive.
>>>
>>> As a side note, I think it was this paucity of power that caused many
>>> folks to not understand that "A -> B" could be true when "B" was false.
>>
>> It resolves the Liar Paradox to semantically malformed:
>>
>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)).
>> LP = not(true(LP)).
>>
>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
>> false.
>>
>> (SWI-Prolog (threaded, 64 bits, version 7.6.4)
>>
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350789898_Prolog_detects_and_rejects_pathological_self_reference_in_the_Godel_sentence
>
>
> I know this is painful for you but 1) it is ill-formed AND 2) it isn't
> the liar's paradox; it's just ill-formed like most of your attempts to
> express things symbolically.
>

LP := ~True(LP)
I will certainly not take you word that the above expression is not
correctly encoded in Prolog.

There is a dearth of material on formalizing the Liar Paradox, so it is
very doubtful that you have mastered it.

> It's also an extremely poor response. I was hoping that Richard would
> inform me if Prolog had extraordinarily extended its representation and
> reasoning power. And here you are, a self-proclaimed Prologue expert who
> missed a chance to actually pass back useful and correct information.

unify_with_occurs_check is from a quoted reference in my paper from
Clocksin and Mellish on page 3. It does detect semantically ill-formed
expressions that specify infinitely nested definition.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350789898_Prolog_detects_and_rejects_pathological_self_reference_in_the_Godel_sentence

> Instead, as usual, you just crapped on your terminal with non-sense. I
> guess you know as little about Prologue as everything else you discuss.
>
> I don't think I'll bother to thank you for your effort.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

On 4/29/2022 11:21 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/30/2022 12:08 AM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>> On 4/29/2022 7:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/29/2022 8:29 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>> On 4/29/2022 5:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 4/29/22 6:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>    <SNIP>
>>>>
>>>>>> When this is encoded in Prolog it is rejected as an infinite term
>>>>>> as my paper clearly shows.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As it should, since G uses Higher Order Logic which can NOT be
>>>>> properly expressed in the first order logic of Prolog.
>>>>
>>>> Unless Prolog has changed wildly in the last several years, it isn't
>>>> even close to FOL. I remember it as a toy that could only represent
>>>> and reason with Horn clauses. Can Prolog now deal with quantifiers
>>>> and negation on both sides of an implication? That would be very
>>>> impressive.
>>>>
>>>> As a side note, I think it was this paucity of power that caused
>>>> many folks to not understand that "A -> B" could be true when "B"
>>>> was false.
>>>
>>> It resolves the Liar Paradox to semantically malformed:
>>>
>>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)).
>>> LP = not(true(LP)).
>>>
>>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
>>> false.
>>>
>>> (SWI-Prolog (threaded, 64 bits, version 7.6.4)
>>>
>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350789898_Prolog_detects_and_rejects_pathological_self_reference_in_the_Godel_sentence
>>
>>
>>
>> I know this is painful for you but 1) it is ill-formed AND 2) it isn't
>> the liar's paradox; it's just ill-formed like most of your attempts to
>> express things symbolically.
>>
>
> LP := ~True(LP)
> I will certainly not take you word that the above expression is not
> correctly encoded in Prolog.
>
> There is a dearth of material on formalizing the Liar Paradox, so it is
> very doubtful that you have mastered it.
>
>> It's also an extremely poor response. I was hoping that Richard would
>> inform me if Prolog had extraordinarily extended its representation
>> and reasoning power. And here you are, a self-proclaimed Prologue
>> expert who missed a chance to actually pass back useful and correct
>> information.
>
> unify_with_occurs_check is from a quoted reference in my paper from
> Clocksin and Mellish on page 3. It does detect semantically ill-formed
> expressions that specify infinitely nested definition.
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350789898_Prolog_detects_and_rejects_pathological_self_reference_in_the_Godel_sentence
>
>
>> Instead, as usual, you just crapped on your terminal with non-sense. I
>> guess you know as little about Prologue as everything else you discuss.
>>
>> I don't think I'll bother to thank you for your effort.
So even Prologue tells you your input is ill-formed and I agree that
it's ill-formed in any formalism I know about. I can also tell you that
it isn't the liar's paradox. If it is it would be well-formed in the
formalism and the interpretation mechanism (or theory) might point out
that it's kinky. But note that a formalism can only tell you about those
things that are well formed. Consider the string "8ujshjqd) dupe{]"
which Prologue will likely tell you is ill formed too. Hell, I'm going
to claim that expression is the Liar's Paradox (note the capitalization
this time). And I'm as entitled to that claim as you are to yours. It's
based on the same reasoning. In other words your "proof scheme" is
fucked, but I'm sure you'll double down on it in the next several days.
I have no doubt that you cannot understand this and you might even try
one more stupid reply. But why bother? Once again you failed to answer a
very basic question about Prologue. I think we can all conclude that you
know about as much about Prologue as you do about C, C ++, and rookie
assembler code. In other words, as ignorant as a turnip.
You have butted in when I asked Richard a question that you showed you
don't understand. Rather than try to answer it - a simple task for a
self proclaimed expert such as yourself - you stuck your head up your
ass and started typing. I think you have developed hemorrhoids, over
time, as your major health problem.
--
Jeff Barnett

On 4/30/2022 1:23 AM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
> On 4/29/2022 11:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/30/2022 12:08 AM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>> On 4/29/2022 7:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/29/2022 8:29 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>>> On 4/29/2022 5:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/29/22 6:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>    <SNIP>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> When this is encoded in Prolog it is rejected as an infinite term
>>>>>>> as my paper clearly shows.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As it should, since G uses Higher Order Logic which can NOT be
>>>>>> properly expressed in the first order logic of Prolog.
>>>>>
>>>>> Unless Prolog has changed wildly in the last several years, it
>>>>> isn't even close to FOL. I remember it as a toy that could only
>>>>> represent and reason with Horn clauses. Can Prolog now deal with
>>>>> quantifiers and negation on both sides of an implication? That
>>>>> would be very impressive.
>>>>>
>>>>> As a side note, I think it was this paucity of power that caused
>>>>> many folks to not understand that "A -> B" could be true when "B"
>>>>> was false.
>>>>
>>>> It resolves the Liar Paradox to semantically malformed:
>>>>
>>>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)).
>>>> LP = not(true(LP)).
>>>>
>>>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
>>>> false.
>>>>
>>>> (SWI-Prolog (threaded, 64 bits, version 7.6.4)
>>>>
>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350789898_Prolog_detects_and_rejects_pathological_self_reference_in_the_Godel_sentence
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I know this is painful for you but 1) it is ill-formed AND 2) it
>>> isn't the liar's paradox; it's just ill-formed like most of your
>>> attempts to express things symbolically.
>>>
>>
>> LP := ~True(LP)
>> I will certainly not take you word that the above expression is not
>> correctly encoded in Prolog.
>>
>> There is a dearth of material on formalizing the Liar Paradox, so it
>> is very doubtful that you have mastered it.
>>
>>> It's also an extremely poor response. I was hoping that Richard would
>>> inform me if Prolog had extraordinarily extended its representation
>>> and reasoning power. And here you are, a self-proclaimed Prologue
>>> expert who missed a chance to actually pass back useful and correct
>>> information.
>>
>> unify_with_occurs_check is from a quoted reference in my paper from
>> Clocksin and Mellish on page 3. It does detect semantically ill-formed
>> expressions that specify infinitely nested definition.
>>
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350789898_Prolog_detects_and_rejects_pathological_self_reference_in_the_Godel_sentence
>>
>>
>>> Instead, as usual, you just crapped on your terminal with non-sense.
>>> I guess you know as little about Prologue as everything else you
>>> discuss.
>>>
>>> I don't think I'll bother to thank you for your effort.
> So even Prologue tells you your input is ill-formed and I agree that
> it's ill-formed in any formalism I know about. I can also tell you that
> it isn't the liar's paradox.

OK do that cite all of the references of the proper way to formalize the
liar paradox.

> If it is it would be well-formed in the
> formalism and the interpretation mechanism (or theory) might point out
> that it's kinky. But note that a formalism can only tell you about those
> things that are well formed. Consider the string "8ujshjqd) dupe{]"
> which Prologue will likely tell you is ill formed too. Hell, I'm going
> to claim that expression is the Liar's Paradox (note the capitalization
> this time). And I'm as entitled to that claim as you are to yours. It's
> based on the same reasoning. In other words your "proof scheme" is
> fucked, but I'm sure you'll double down on it in the next several days.
>
> I have no doubt that you cannot understand this and you might even try
> one more stupid reply. But why bother? Once again you failed to answer a
> very basic question about Prologue. I think we can all conclude that you
> know about as much about Prologue as you do about C, C ++, and rookie
> assembler code. In other words, as ignorant as a turnip.
>
> You have butted in when I asked Richard a question that you showed you
> don't understand. Rather than try to answer it - a simple task for a
> self proclaimed expert such as yourself - you stuck your head up your
> ass and started typing. I think you have developed hemorrhoids, over
> time, as your major health problem.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 17:41:05 -0400
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:

> On 4/29/22 4:17 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 15:42:49 -0400
> > Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> What is given the wrong category, and what category is it
> >> incorrectly being given.
> >
> > The two categories are the decider and that which is being decided.
> >
>
> So you are making a category error, because those are not CATEGORIES.
>
> And no one says the "Halt Decider" IS the "Halting Property"

See [Strachey, 1965].

/Flibble

On 4/30/2022 7:48 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> [Strachey, 1965

Strachey, C 1965. An impossible program The Computer Journal, Volume 7,
Issue 4,January 1965, Page 313, https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/7.4.313

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

On 4/30/22 8:48 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 17:41:05 -0400
> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>
>> On 4/29/22 4:17 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 15:42:49 -0400
>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> What is given the wrong category, and what category is it
>>>> incorrectly being given.
>>>
>>> The two categories are the decider and that which is being decided.
>>>
>>
>> So you are making a category error, because those are not CATEGORIES.
>>
>> And no one says the "Halt Decider" IS the "Halting Property"
>
> See [Strachey, 1965].
>
> /Flibble
>

And where does he say that the Halting Property is the program?

You still haven't actually DEFINED what you mean by the category, and
what is called part of that that actually isn't.

On 4/29/22 11:58 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/29/2022 10:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/29/2022 9:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> On 4/29/22 10:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/29/2022 8:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 4/29/22 8:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/29/2022 6:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/29/22 6:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/29/2022 4:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/29/22 4:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/29/2022 3:17 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 15:42:49 -0400
>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/29/22 3:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/29/2022 10:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-29 14:07:07 +0000, Mr Flibble said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A proof of an erroneous theory is, by implication, also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> erroneous. The halting problem as stated is erroneous
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ergo all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> currently extant halting problem proofs are, by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implication, also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> erroneous and do not require formal refutation to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considered
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> invalid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fix the halting problem itself before trying to refute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott, you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shower.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apparently Mr Flibble does not know what "erroneous" mean.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise he would tell.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is a common meaning that can be applied proofs: an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "erroneous proof"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not a proof although it may look like one. Does this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extend to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or theories? Does "erroneous theory" mean something that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like a theory but isn't? Is Mr Flibble trying to say that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting problem is nor really any problem?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> A person that only cares about rebuttal and does not give a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> rat's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ass about truth would say that. You don't pay attention to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> what he
>>>>>>>>>>>>> says you merely pick out some fake excuse for a rebuttal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flibble perfectly defined "erroneous proof" and "erroneous
>>>>>>>>>>>>> theory"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in that their basis is anchored in the well defined concept of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [category error]:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [category error]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a semantic or ontological error in which things belonging to a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular category are presented as if they belong to a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>> category,[1] or, alternatively, a property is ascribed to a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that could not possibly have that property.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake
>>>>>>>>>>>> And exactly WHAT is the category error in the Halting Problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The infinitely recursive definition.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What is given the wrong category, and what category is it
>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrectly
>>>>>>>>>>>> being given.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The two categories are the decider and that which is being
>>>>>>>>>>> decided.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can't state what the error is, you are just proving
>>>>>>>>>>>> that YOU
>>>>>>>>>>>> are just in "Rebuttal Mode" and not caring about what is the
>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>>>> truth.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The Liar Paradox and Gödel's G are examples of infinitely
>>>>>>>>>> recursive definition.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> LP := ~True(LP)
>>>>>>>>>> G := ~Provable(G)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is totally obvious when they are encoded in Prolog.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350789898_Prolog_detects_and_rejects_pathological_self_reference_in_the_Godel_sentence
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Except that isn't the actual statement of G, and G can't be
>>>>>>>>> written in Prolog because Prolog only handles first order logic
>>>>>>>>> and G uses Higher Order logic.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> DIRECT QUOTE FROM page 40/43 OF Gödel's PAPER
>>>>>>>> The analogy between this result and Richard’s antinomy leaps to
>>>>>>>> the eye; there is also a close relationship with the “liar”
>>>>>>>> antinomy,^14 since the undecidable proposition [R(q); q] states
>>>>>>>> precisely that q belongs to K, i.e. according to (1), that
>>>>>>>> [R(q); q] is not provable. We are therefore confronted with a
>>>>>>>> proposition which asserts its own unprovability.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Close Relationship" is not the same thing as "Same as".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, there is some similarity in how G is built to the liar's
>>>>>>> paradox, but G includes some extra indirection that makes it so
>>>>>>> it does still have a truth value, and then it is about something
>>>>>>> being Provable, and for ALL statements, the provability of that
>>>>>>> statement is ALWAYS a truth-bearer, as statements which are not
>>>>>>> truth bearers are by definition not provable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>>>> similar undecidability proof
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right, by the same transformation used with the liars paradox,
>>>>>>> you can transform another antinomy to build a similar
>>>>>>> contradiction that makes G unprovable but true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That doesn't mean G's truth value is the same as that antinomy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://mavdisk.mnsu.edu/pj2943kt/Fall%202015/Promotion%20Application/Previous%20Years%20Article%2022%20Materials/godel-1931.pdf
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thus: G ⟷ ~Provable(G)
>>>>>>>> is sufficiently equivalent to Gödel's G.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope. Just shows you don't understand G.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When this is encoded in Prolog it is rejected as an infinite
>>>>>>>> term as my paper clearly shows.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As it should, since G uses Higher Order Logic which can NOT be
>>>>>>> properly expressed in the first order logic of Prolog.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>>>>>> undecidability proof
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thus this {epistemological antinomy} is sufficiently equivalent
>>>>>> G ⟷ ~Provable(G)
>>>>>
>>>>> Since that isn't G, you havn't made you point.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gödel said it does not have to be G:
>>>>
>>>> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>>>> undecidability proof
>>>>
>>>
>>> You don't understand what he is saying, he is saying you can create a
>>> statement similar to the G he presents based on other antinomies. He
>>> just presented one based on the simplest version of the Liar's Paradox.
>>>
>>
>> Sure when he says: "Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be
>> used for a similar undecidability proof"
>>
>> He must actually mean NOT
>> Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>> undecidability proof
>>
>> Because everyone knows that every X always means NOT every X
>>
>> Don't you feel a little embarrassed by your bald faced lie?
>>
>>
>
> Because I want to be honest and truthful I will add:
> Alternatively you have no idea what an "epistemological antinomy" is.
> I believe that this is more probable than you lied, so I retract that.
>