Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.prolog > #12916
| From | André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory, comp.lang.prolog, comp.ai.philosophy |
| Subject | Re: Is this correct Prolog? |
| Date | 2022-05-03 11:17 -0600 |
| Organization | Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism |
| Message-ID | <t4ro31$1kc$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (17 earlier) <t4pulq$bci$1@dont-email.me> <t4rh4c$t51$1@dont-email.me> <t4rk2m$rei$1@dont-email.me> <t4rmkb$jrt$1@dont-email.me> <t4rncl$qtf$1@dont-email.me> |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
On 2022-05-03 11:05, olcott wrote: > On 5/3/2022 11:52 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >> On 2022-05-03 10:08, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/3/2022 10:18 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>> On 2022-05-02 18:57, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 5/2/2022 6:43 PM, Ben wrote: >>>>>> Aleksy Grabowski <hurufu@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> IF you are defining that your logic system is limited to what >>>>>>>> Prolog can "Prove", that is fine. Just realize that you have >>>>>>>> just defined that your >>>>>>>> logic system can't handle a lot of the real problems in the >>>>>>>> world, and in particular, it is very limited in the mathematics >>>>>>>> it can handle. >>>>>>>> I am pretty sure that Prolog is NOT up to handling the logic >>>>>>>> needed to >>>>>>>> handle the mathematics needed to express Godel's G, or the >>>>>>>> Halting Problem. >>>>>>>> Thus, your "Proof" that these Theorems are "Wrong" is incorrect, >>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>> have only proven that your limited logic system can't reach them >>>>>>>> in expressibility. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for confirmation, that's what exactly what I was trying to >>>>>>> tell >>>>>>> to topic poster in one of my previous posts. Prolog in it's bare >>>>>>> form >>>>>>> is a bad theorem solver. It wasn't designed a such. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you want to deal with such problems maybe it is better to use Coq >>>>>>> theorem prover, I've never used it by myself, but it looks like >>>>>>> one of >>>>>>> the best proving assistants out there. >>>>>> >>>>>> And indeed there is a fully formalised proof of GIT in Coq (though I >>>>>> think it's the slightly tighter Gödel-Rosser version). >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It is true that G is not provable. G is not provable because it is >>>>> semantically incorrect in the exactly same way that the Liar >>>>> Paradox is semantically incorrect. >>>>> >>>>> Gödel says: >>>>> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a >>>>> similar undecidability proof >>>>> >>>>> André denied this six times yesterday >>>>> The Liar Paradox is an epistemological antinomy, thus can likewise >>>>> be used for a similar undecidability proof. >>>> >>>> No. The Liar can be used to construct an *identical* proof. >>> >>> Really? >> >> Of course really. >> >> His original proof drew on The Liar for inspiration. So a proof which >> draws on The Liar would be the same proof. >> >> He is saying that he could have used ANY antinomy. >> >> IOW, he could have chosen a *different* antinomy from The Liar, call >> it Antinomy X, and constructed a *similar* proof around that. It would >> not be the same proof, but it would involve constructing some sentence >> G-Prime which held the same relation to Antinomy X as G hold to The Liar. >> >> But there would not be an equivalence between G-Prime and X anymore >> than there is an equivalence between G and The Liar. >> >> This is the point I keep trying to drive home. There is NO EQUIVALENCE >> between G and the The Liar. Only a close relationship. >> >>>> Other antinomies could be used for similar proofs. He's already >>>> talking about The Liar. >>>> >>>>> Which means that the Liar Paradox is sufficiently equivalent to >>>>> Gödel's G. Which means if the basic mechanism of epistemological >>>>> antinomy is shown to be semantically incorrect then Gödel's G is >>>>> shown to be semantically incorrect. >>>> >>>> You have some serious reading comprehension problems. I never denied >>>> the things Gödel wrote. I denied your conclusion because it does not >>>> follow. >>>> >>>> Gödel starts by claiming there is a close relationship (*not* >>>> equivalence) between one particular antinomy, The Liar, and his G. >>>> >>>> He then states that similar proofs could be constructed using any >>>> antinomy. >>>> >>>> That entails that other antinomies could be used to construct >>>> similar proofs involving a similar close relation (again, *not* >>>> equivalence). >>>> >>> >>> That you persisted (six times) on claiming that Gödel's statement >>> about the Liar Paradox overrode and superseded his statement about >>> the entire category that the Liar Paradox belongs to was despicably >>> deceitful, >> >> Except I made no such claim. Not even once. You persisted (six times) >> in misreading my claim. >> >>> unless you believe that "close relationship" is stronger than >>> "similar undecidability proof". In that case you never lied about >>> this. I really only want an honest dialogue so I am happy to admit my >>> mistakes. >>> >>>> Gödel never claims *any* antinomy is equivalent to his G. Merely >>>> that a close relationship holds. >>>> >>> >>> I take "similar undecidability proof" to mean isomorphic. >> >> Fine. That would mean the proof involving the Liar and G would be >> isomorphic to the proof involving antinomy X and G-Prime. >> > > I have no idea what you mean by G-Prime. It is defined directly above. Trying reading more carefully. >> That does *NOT* get you to the claim you were making which was that G >> in some sense equivalent to The Liar. It is not. >> >> And your claim that G is not a truth bearer rests on your false claim >> that G and The Liar are somehow equivalent (though you refuse to say >> with respect to what). > > Incomplete(T) ↔ ∃φ ((T ⊬ φ) ∧ (T ⊬ ¬φ)). > It is the fact that the mathematical definition of Incompleteness simply > assumes that φ is semantically correct that is the core mistake of the > mathematical definition of Incompleteness. > >> G is very clearly a truth-bearer. Go back and reread my original >> explanation. >> > > When G is not provable in PA, how is it shown to be true? > If it is not shown to be true in PA then we have the strawman error. Here you're simply begging the question by assuming your own conclusion: that being true and being provable are the same. The whole point of Gödel's proof is that they cannot be the same (at least not for non-trivial systems). The question is not whether it is true but whether it is a truth *bearer*. You make the claim that The Liar is not a truth bearer (a plausible claim depending on one's definitions). You then jump to the conclusion that G is not a truth bearer based on your assertion that it is "equivalent" to The Liar. But it is *NOT* equivalent. It merely bears a close relationship. But you refuse to actually consider what the nature of that relationship; there are both similiarites and differences. Whereas the Liar has no content other than to assert its own falsity, Gödel's G has definite content. It does not assert its own unprovability, it asserts a very specific mathematical claim, one which must by its nature be either true or false. Therefore G *is* a truth bearer. The formulation that G asserts its own unprovability is the Cliff-Notes version of the proof. It's not the substance of the actual proof. André -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
Back to comp.lang.prolog | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-04-30 02:02 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-04-30 12:31 +0300
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Aleksy Grabowski <hurufu@gmail.com> - 2022-04-30 20:15 +0200
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-04-30 16:08 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-01 12:26 +0300
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 06:00 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Aleksy Grabowski <hurufu@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 13:49 +0200
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 08:09 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Aleksy Grabowski <hurufu@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 15:35 +0200
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 08:55 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Aleksy Grabowski <hurufu@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 16:28 +0200
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 10:24 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Aleksy Grabowski <hurufu@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 17:44 +0200
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 11:04 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Aleksy Grabowski <hurufu@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 18:38 +0200
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 11:49 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2022-05-02 09:51 -0700
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Aleksy Grabowski <hurufu@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 19:38 +0200
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2022-05-02 11:04 -0700
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 14:22 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 14:14 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 14:24 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Aleksy Grabowski <hurufu@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 21:43 +0200
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 15:10 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Aleksy Grabowski <hurufu@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 22:37 +0200
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 15:58 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 16:30 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Aleksy Grabowski <hurufu@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 23:33 +0200
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 16:42 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Aleksy Grabowski <hurufu@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 00:13 +0200
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 19:35 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-05-02 11:28 -0600
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-02 19:41 +0100
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 14:26 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 14:32 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-02 18:28 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Aleksy Grabowski <hurufu@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 00:41 +0200
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2022-05-02 16:00 -0700
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Aleksy Grabowski <hurufu@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 01:39 +0200
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2022-05-02 17:26 -0700
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-03 00:43 +0100
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2022-05-02 17:20 -0700
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 19:57 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-03 03:21 +0100
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 22:01 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2022-05-03 01:18 -0700
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-03 08:05 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-04 21:30 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-04 22:46 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-04 22:02 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-05 07:41 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 12:57 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-05 12:06 -0600
Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 16:23 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-05 22:24 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 21:37 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-06 07:43 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 15:29 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-03 15:59 +0100
Re: Is this correct Prolog? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-03 09:18 -0600
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 11:08 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-03 10:52 -0600
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 12:05 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-03 11:17 -0600
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 12:33 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-03 12:23 -0600
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 13:59 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-03 14:03 -0600
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 22:24 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-03 21:54 -0600
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-04 07:27 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ André didn't lie after all ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 12:08 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-05-03 12:33 -0600
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 14:12 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-03 13:22 -0600
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 21:53 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-03 23:12 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 22:53 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-03 22:06 -0600
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-04 01:17 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-04 08:02 -0600
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-04 14:01 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-04 19:48 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-05-03 15:58 -0600
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 17:13 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 19:11 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 19:35 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-02 20:47 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2022-05-02 07:59 -0700
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Aleksy Grabowski <hurufu@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 17:15 +0200
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 10:45 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2022-05-02 09:02 -0700
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 11:26 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-01 12:24 +0300
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 05:58 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 07:12 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 06:45 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 08:07 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 07:15 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 13:49 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-04-30 15:48 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-01 12:38 +0300
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 06:06 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 07:26 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 06:54 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 08:11 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 07:19 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 14:00 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-04-30 21:08 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-04-30 20:42 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-04-30 22:00 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-04-30 21:21 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-04-30 22:38 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-04-30 21:56 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-04-30 23:11 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-04-30 22:15 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-04-30 23:24 -0600
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 06:35 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 13:16 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-01 13:19 +0100
Re: Is this correct Prolog? polcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-01 07:51 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 13:19 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-05-01 11:22 -0600
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-01 12:45 +0300
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 06:28 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 08:01 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 07:09 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 08:16 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 07:18 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 06:50 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 13:26 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-04-30 20:47 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-04-30 23:49 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 11:08 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 13:28 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 14:00 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 15:19 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 14:32 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-01 13:44 -0600
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 14:48 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 16:01 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 15:42 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-01 14:51 -0600
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 17:04 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 18:08 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-01 17:39 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 19:18 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-01 17:26 -0600
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-01 19:58 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 21:32 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-01 20:53 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 22:14 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-01 21:18 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-01 20:37 -0600
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 22:47 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-01 22:04 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-01 22:10 -0600
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-02 07:10 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 08:19 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-02 18:38 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-01 16:37 -0600
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-01 17:44 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-01 17:15 -0600
Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ André is proven to be a liar ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 18:33 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ André is proven to be a liar ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-01 17:44 -0600
Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ André is proven to be a liar ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 18:53 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ André is proven to be a liar ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-01 18:15 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ André is proven to be a liar ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 19:21 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ André is proven to be a liar ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-01 19:56 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-01 17:05 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 16:55 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 11:57 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-01 11:21 -0600
csiph-web