Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.prolog > #12766 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-04-30 02:02 -0500 |
| Last post | 2022-05-01 11:21 -0600 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 173 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.prolog
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
Page 3 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-03 00:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87a6bzfqkz.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #12895 |
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). -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-02 17:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9a3b8777-9d86-405e-b6d9-02d516fbf77en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #12898 |
On Tuesday, 3 May 2022 at 01:43:56 UTC+2, Ben wrote: > Aleksy Grabowski <hur...@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). That's just another piece of nonsense, GIT can be formalised in BASIC for that sake. You bunch of spamming absolute assholes and spammers of all poonds, indeed Olcott is your good measure. *Plonk* Julio
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-02 19:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <t4pulq$bci$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #12898 |
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. 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. -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-03 03:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <874k27fjan.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #12905 |
olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: > On 5/2/2022 6:43 PM, Ben wrote: >> Aleksy Grabowski <hurufu@gmail.com> writes: >>> 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 provable. Proofs abound. I was pointing out one in a proper proof assistant, Coq. -- Ben. "le génie humain a des limites, quand la bêtise humaine n’en a pas" Alexandre Dumas (fils)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-02 22:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <t4q5uo$veh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #12906 |
On 5/2/2022 9:21 PM, Ben wrote: > olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: > >> On 5/2/2022 6:43 PM, Ben wrote: >>> Aleksy Grabowski <hurufu@gmail.com> writes: > >>>> 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 provable. Proofs abound. I was pointing out one in a proper proof > assistant, Coq. > It is OK that you are not a math guy. If you were a math guy you would understand that if G is provable then that makes Gödel totally wrong. G is not Gödel's theorem, it is a key element of his theorem. Incomplete T means that there exists a φ such that φ is not provable or refutable in formal system T. Incomplete(T) ↔ ∃φ ((T ⊬ φ) ∧ (T ⊬ ¬φ)). -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-03 01:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <86965eac-1f4e-4f19-8091-ffc8b3998ff7n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #12907 |
On Tuesday, 3 May 2022 at 05:01:46 UTC+2, olcott wrote: > On 5/2/2022 9:21 PM, Ben wrote: > > olcott <polc...@gmail.com> writes: > >> On 5/2/2022 6:43 PM, Ben wrote: > >>> Aleksy Grabowski <hur...@gmail.com> writes: > > > >>>> 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 provable. Proofs abound. I was pointing out one in a proper proof > > assistant, Coq. > > > It is OK that you are not a math guy. Or a programmer for that sake, that fucking moron just full of shit. But it's NOT OK to cross-spam 5 Usenet groups with just your personal demented chats. Eat shit and die you all. Julio
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-03 08:05 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <vU8cK.2577$ATo1.2258@fx33.iad> |
| In reply to | #12907 |
On 5/2/22 11:01 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/2/2022 9:21 PM, Ben wrote: >> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> On 5/2/2022 6:43 PM, Ben wrote: >>>> Aleksy Grabowski <hurufu@gmail.com> writes: >> >>>>> 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 provable. Proofs abound. I was pointing out one in a proper proof >> assistant, Coq. >> > > It is OK that you are not a math guy. > If you were a math guy you would understand that if G is provable then > that makes Gödel totally wrong. G is not Gödel's theorem, it is a key > element of his theorem. > > Incomplete T means that there exists a φ such that φ is not provable or > refutable in formal system T. > > Incomplete(T) ↔ ∃φ ((T ⊬ φ) ∧ (T ⊬ ¬φ)). > > No, G IS provable, just not in the system F that G is described in, thus F is Incomplete by your definition above. Part of the key of the Godel proof is that while G sort of refers to itself, it does it in a way that F can't handle, so in F, G doesn't refer to itself but just "some statement", but in a 'more advanced' version of F, say F', we can see that relationship, and show that G must be true, proving it in F', but not in F, thus F is incomplete. We can then show that we can make a G' in F' with the same property, and thus show that there exists a system F'' where we can prove G'. This is why you simplification doesn't work. In F, we can't convert G into the statement G says that G is unprovable, but we can in F', thus the statement in F' is that G says that G in unprovable in F, and that statement is provable in F' You don't seem to be able to handle the concept of layers of logic systems.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-04 21:30 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] |
| Message-ID | <t4vcsa$g9o$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #12909 |
On 5/3/2022 7:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/2/22 11:01 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/2/2022 9:21 PM, Ben wrote: >>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 5/2/2022 6:43 PM, Ben wrote: >>>>> Aleksy Grabowski <hurufu@gmail.com> writes: >>> >>>>>> 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 provable. Proofs abound. I was pointing out one in a proper proof >>> assistant, Coq. >>> >> >> It is OK that you are not a math guy. >> If you were a math guy you would understand that if G is provable then >> that makes Gödel totally wrong. G is not Gödel's theorem, it is a key >> element of his theorem. >> >> Incomplete T means that there exists a φ such that φ is not provable >> or refutable in formal system T. >> >> Incomplete(T) ↔ ∃φ ((T ⊬ φ) ∧ (T ⊬ ¬φ)). >> >> > > No, G IS provable, just not in the system F that G is described in, thus > F is Incomplete by your definition above. > > Part of the key of the Godel proof is that while G sort of refers to > itself, it does it in a way that F can't handle, so in F, G doesn't > refer to itself but just "some statement", but in a 'more advanced' > version of F, say F', we can see that relationship, and show that G must > be true, proving it in F', but not in F, thus F is incomplete. > Tarski's hierarchy of languages. It only works at a higher level language because the expression of language at the next level is not self-contradictory. All epistemological antinomies are self-contradictory making them semantically invalid. In his undefinability proof: (only two pages long) https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf He defines these two levels as "the theory" and the next higher level is called the "the metatheory". (see link). > We can then show that we can make a G' in F' with the same property, and > thus show that there exists a system F'' where we can prove G'. > > This is why you simplification doesn't work. In F, we can't convert G > into the statement G says that G is unprovable, but we can in F', thus > the statement in F' is that G says that G in unprovable in F, and that > statement is provable in F' > Likewise for the liar Paradox. Apparently Tarski could prove the Liar Paradox in his meta-theory. > You don't seem to be able to handle the concept of layers of logic systems. > -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-04 22:46 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] |
| Message-ID | <4UGcK.11523$IQK.4635@fx02.iad> |
| In reply to | #12938 |
On 5/4/22 10:30 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/3/2022 7:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 5/2/22 11:01 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/2/2022 9:21 PM, Ben wrote: >>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 5/2/2022 6:43 PM, Ben wrote: >>>>>> Aleksy Grabowski <hurufu@gmail.com> writes: >>>> >>>>>>> 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 provable. Proofs abound. I was pointing out one in a proper >>>> proof >>>> assistant, Coq. >>>> >>> >>> It is OK that you are not a math guy. >>> If you were a math guy you would understand that if G is provable >>> then that makes Gödel totally wrong. G is not Gödel's theorem, it is >>> a key element of his theorem. >>> >>> Incomplete T means that there exists a φ such that φ is not provable >>> or refutable in formal system T. >>> >>> Incomplete(T) ↔ ∃φ ((T ⊬ φ) ∧ (T ⊬ ¬φ)). >>> >>> >> >> No, G IS provable, just not in the system F that G is described in, >> thus F is Incomplete by your definition above. >> >> Part of the key of the Godel proof is that while G sort of refers to >> itself, it does it in a way that F can't handle, so in F, G doesn't >> refer to itself but just "some statement", but in a 'more advanced' >> version of F, say F', we can see that relationship, and show that G >> must be true, proving it in F', but not in F, thus F is incomplete. >> > > Tarski's hierarchy of languages. > > It only works at a higher level language because the expression of > language at the next level is not self-contradictory. > > All epistemological antinomies are self-contradictory making them > semantically invalid. > > In his undefinability proof: (only two pages long) > https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf > > He defines these two levels as "the theory" and the next higher level is > called the "the metatheory". (see link). So we can prove G in the Metatheory, so it is True in the Theory too. > since in this interpretation the sentence x, which contains no specific term of the metatheory, is its o\vn correlate, the proof of the sentence x given in the metatheory can automatically be carried over into the theory itself: the sentence x which is undecidable in the original theory becomes a decidable sentence in the enriched theory. But if G is true in the Theory, it is BY DEFINITION not provable in the Theory, so the space of the Theory is shown to have a True Statement which is not provable, thus the system of the Theory in Incomplete. > > >> We can then show that we can make a G' in F' with the same property, >> and thus show that there exists a system F'' where we can prove G'. >> >> This is why you simplification doesn't work. In F, we can't convert G >> into the statement G says that G is unprovable, but we can in F', thus >> the statement in F' is that G says that G in unprovable in F, and that >> statement is provable in F' >> > > Likewise for the liar Paradox. Apparently Tarski could prove the Liar > Paradox in his meta-theory. > >> You don't seem to be able to handle the concept of layers of logic >> systems. >> > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-04 22:02 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] |
| Message-ID | <t4veo9$2d5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #12939 |
On 5/4/2022 9:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/4/22 10:30 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/3/2022 7:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 5/2/22 11:01 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/2/2022 9:21 PM, Ben wrote: >>>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> On 5/2/2022 6:43 PM, Ben wrote: >>>>>>> Aleksy Grabowski <hurufu@gmail.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>>>> 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 provable. Proofs abound. I was pointing out one in a proper >>>>> proof >>>>> assistant, Coq. >>>>> >>>> >>>> It is OK that you are not a math guy. >>>> If you were a math guy you would understand that if G is provable >>>> then that makes Gödel totally wrong. G is not Gödel's theorem, it is >>>> a key element of his theorem. >>>> >>>> Incomplete T means that there exists a φ such that φ is not provable >>>> or refutable in formal system T. >>>> >>>> Incomplete(T) ↔ ∃φ ((T ⊬ φ) ∧ (T ⊬ ¬φ)). >>>> >>>> >>> >>> No, G IS provable, just not in the system F that G is described in, >>> thus F is Incomplete by your definition above. >>> >>> Part of the key of the Godel proof is that while G sort of refers to >>> itself, it does it in a way that F can't handle, so in F, G doesn't >>> refer to itself but just "some statement", but in a 'more advanced' >>> version of F, say F', we can see that relationship, and show that G >>> must be true, proving it in F', but not in F, thus F is incomplete. >>> >> >> Tarski's hierarchy of languages. >> >> It only works at a higher level language because the expression of >> language at the next level is not self-contradictory. >> >> All epistemological antinomies are self-contradictory making them >> semantically invalid. >> >> In his undefinability proof: (only two pages long) >> https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf >> >> He defines these two levels as "the theory" and the next higher level >> is called the "the metatheory". (see link). > > So we can prove G in the Metatheory, so it is True in the Theory too. In the same way that having a cat in your attic is proof that your car is leaking oil. >> since in this interpretation the sentence x, which contains no >> specific term of the metatheory, is its o\vn correlate, the proof of >> the sentence x given in the metatheory can automatically be carried >> over into the theory itself: the sentence x which is undecidable in >> the original theory becomes a decidable sentence in the enriched theory. > > But if G is true in the Theory, it is BY DEFINITION not provable in the > Theory, so the space of the Theory is shown to have a True Statement > which is not provable, thus the system of the Theory in Incomplete. It really has never made any sense how people can't understand that self-contradictory expressions of language are necessary semantically invalid. Back in 1974 mankind has had almost 2000 years to think about the Liar Paradox and no one had a clue what the issue was. Any unprovable expression of any formal or natural language is simply untrue and nothing more. >> >> >>> We can then show that we can make a G' in F' with the same property, >>> and thus show that there exists a system F'' where we can prove G'. >>> >>> This is why you simplification doesn't work. In F, we can't convert G >>> into the statement G says that G is unprovable, but we can in F', >>> thus the statement in F' is that G says that G in unprovable in F, >>> and that statement is provable in F' >>> >> >> Likewise for the liar Paradox. Apparently Tarski could prove the Liar >> Paradox in his meta-theory. >> >>> You don't seem to be able to handle the concept of layers of logic >>> systems. >>> >> >> > -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-05 07:41 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] |
| Message-ID | <XJOcK.720276$7F2.122603@fx12.iad> |
| In reply to | #12940 |
On 5/4/22 11:02 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/4/2022 9:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 5/4/22 10:30 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/3/2022 7:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 5/2/22 11:01 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 5/2/2022 9:21 PM, Ben wrote: >>>>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 5/2/2022 6:43 PM, Ben wrote: >>>>>>>> Aleksy Grabowski <hurufu@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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 provable. Proofs abound. I was pointing out one in a proper >>>>>> proof >>>>>> assistant, Coq. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It is OK that you are not a math guy. >>>>> If you were a math guy you would understand that if G is provable >>>>> then that makes Gödel totally wrong. G is not Gödel's theorem, it >>>>> is a key element of his theorem. >>>>> >>>>> Incomplete T means that there exists a φ such that φ is not >>>>> provable or refutable in formal system T. >>>>> >>>>> Incomplete(T) ↔ ∃φ ((T ⊬ φ) ∧ (T ⊬ ¬φ)). >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> No, G IS provable, just not in the system F that G is described in, >>>> thus F is Incomplete by your definition above. >>>> >>>> Part of the key of the Godel proof is that while G sort of refers to >>>> itself, it does it in a way that F can't handle, so in F, G doesn't >>>> refer to itself but just "some statement", but in a 'more advanced' >>>> version of F, say F', we can see that relationship, and show that G >>>> must be true, proving it in F', but not in F, thus F is incomplete. >>>> >>> >>> Tarski's hierarchy of languages. >>> >>> It only works at a higher level language because the expression of >>> language at the next level is not self-contradictory. >>> >>> All epistemological antinomies are self-contradictory making them >>> semantically invalid. >>> >>> In his undefinability proof: (only two pages long) >>> https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf >>> >>> He defines these two levels as "the theory" and the next higher level >>> is called the "the metatheory". (see link). >> >> So we can prove G in the Metatheory, so it is True in the Theory too. > > In the same way that having a cat in your attic is proof that your car > is leaking oil. Nope, shows you don't understand the proof. Have you actually read it, or just the 'cliff notes' version. You know, the one with the actual > >>> since in this interpretation the sentence x, which contains no >>> specific term of the metatheory, is its o\vn correlate, the proof of >>> the sentence x given in the metatheory can automatically be carried >>> over into the theory itself: the sentence x which is undecidable in >>> the original theory becomes a decidable sentence in the enriched theory. >> >> But if G is true in the Theory, it is BY DEFINITION not provable in >> the Theory, so the space of the Theory is shown to have a True >> Statement which is not provable, thus the system of the Theory in >> Incomplete. > > It really has never made any sense how people can't understand that > self-contradictory expressions of language are necessary semantically > invalid. Back in 1974 mankind has had almost 2000 years to think about > the Liar Paradox and no one had a clue what the issue was. Except that G isn't self-contradictory. The actual G makes a statement of a mathematical problem and asks if it has a solution. That sort of statement is ALWAYS a Truth Bearer. I think your problem is you don't even uderstand that power and limits of semantics. > > Any unprovable expression of any formal or natural language is simply > untrue and nothing more. Nope. Truth does not mean Provable. An Unproven statement (or even unprovable statement) might still be True, it just can't be KNOWN. You confuse truth with knowledge, maybe because you have too much ego and think your knowledge defines what is. By your statement, the Bible is untrue, and you are thus a Liar for making statements based on it being true. We can't beleive the words of a Liar, so we shouldn't beleive you when you claim Truth implies Provable. Yes, you can build a logic system that defines that, in that system, a statement is only a Truth Bearer is it is provable or refutable, but such a system can not handle our mathematics (at least not and stay consistent). All you are doing is showing you don't understand how logic actually works. > >>> >>> >>>> We can then show that we can make a G' in F' with the same property, >>>> and thus show that there exists a system F'' where we can prove G'. >>>> >>>> This is why you simplification doesn't work. In F, we can't convert >>>> G into the statement G says that G is unprovable, but we can in F', >>>> thus the statement in F' is that G says that G in unprovable in F, >>>> and that statement is provable in F' >>>> >>> >>> Likewise for the liar Paradox. Apparently Tarski could prove the Liar >>> Paradox in his meta-theory. >>> >>>> You don't seem to be able to handle the concept of layers of logic >>>> systems. >>>> >>> >>> >> > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-05 12:57 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] |
| Message-ID | <t5136n$4j0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #12939 |
On 5/4/2022 9:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/4/22 10:30 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/3/2022 7:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 5/2/22 11:01 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/2/2022 9:21 PM, Ben wrote: >>>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> On 5/2/2022 6:43 PM, Ben wrote: >>>>>>> Aleksy Grabowski <hurufu@gmail.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>>>> 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 provable. Proofs abound. I was pointing out one in a proper >>>>> proof >>>>> assistant, Coq. >>>>> >>>> >>>> It is OK that you are not a math guy. >>>> If you were a math guy you would understand that if G is provable >>>> then that makes Gödel totally wrong. G is not Gödel's theorem, it is >>>> a key element of his theorem. >>>> >>>> Incomplete T means that there exists a φ such that φ is not provable >>>> or refutable in formal system T. >>>> >>>> Incomplete(T) ↔ ∃φ ((T ⊬ φ) ∧ (T ⊬ ¬φ)). >>>> >>>> >>> >>> No, G IS provable, just not in the system F that G is described in, >>> thus F is Incomplete by your definition above. >>> >>> Part of the key of the Godel proof is that while G sort of refers to >>> itself, it does it in a way that F can't handle, so in F, G doesn't >>> refer to itself but just "some statement", but in a 'more advanced' >>> version of F, say F', we can see that relationship, and show that G >>> must be true, proving it in F', but not in F, thus F is incomplete. >>> >> >> Tarski's hierarchy of languages. >> >> It only works at a higher level language because the expression of >> language at the next level is not self-contradictory. >> >> All epistemological antinomies are self-contradictory making them >> semantically invalid. >> >> In his undefinability proof: (only two pages long) >> https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf >> >> He defines these two levels as "the theory" and the next higher level >> is called the "the metatheory". (see link). > > So we can prove G in the Metatheory, Yes. > so it is True in the Theory too. > Not at all. In the theory p is self-contradictory thus not a truth bearer. In the meta-theory p is NOT self-contradictory. >> since in this interpretation the sentence x, which contains no >> specific term of the metatheory, is its o\vn correlate, the proof of >> the sentence x given in the metatheory can automatically be carried >> over into the theory itself: the sentence x which is undecidable in >> the original theory becomes a decidable sentence in the enriched theory. > > But if G is true in the Theory, it is BY DEFINITION not provable in the > Theory, so the space of the Theory is shown to have a True Statement > which is not provable, thus the system of the Theory in Incomplete. G is self-contradictory on the theory and non self-contradictory in the meta-theory. >> >> >>> We can then show that we can make a G' in F' with the same property, >>> and thus show that there exists a system F'' where we can prove G'. >>> >>> This is why you simplification doesn't work. In F, we can't convert G >>> into the statement G says that G is unprovable, but we can in F', >>> thus the statement in F' is that G says that G in unprovable in F, >>> and that statement is provable in F' >>> >> >> Likewise for the liar Paradox. Apparently Tarski could prove the Liar >> Paradox in his meta-theory. >> >>> You don't seem to be able to handle the concept of layers of logic >>> systems. >>> >> >> > -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-05 12:06 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] |
| Message-ID | <t513mm$7em$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #12952 |
On 2022-05-05 11:57, olcott wrote: > On 5/4/2022 9:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> But if G is true in the Theory, it is BY DEFINITION not provable in >> the Theory, so the space of the Theory is shown to have a True >> Statement which is not provable, thus the system of the Theory in >> Incomplete. > > G is self-contradictory on the theory and non self-contradictory in the > meta-theory. G is not self-contradictory in either the theory or the meta-theory. The Liar Paradox and G are not the same sentence. You keep treating them as if they were based solely on Gödel's claim that there is a close relationship between them. But saying two things are closely related does not mean they are the same. G asserts a claim about arithmetic. It asserts nothing about itself. André -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-05 16:23 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] |
| Message-ID | <t51f8k$5sc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #12953 |
On 5/5/2022 1:06 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2022-05-05 11:57, olcott wrote: >> On 5/4/2022 9:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > >>> But if G is true in the Theory, it is BY DEFINITION not provable in >>> the Theory, so the space of the Theory is shown to have a True >>> Statement which is not provable, thus the system of the Theory in >>> Incomplete. >> >> G is self-contradictory on the theory and non self-contradictory in >> the meta-theory. > > G is not self-contradictory in either the theory or the meta-theory. > > The Liar Paradox and G are not the same sentence. You keep treating them > as if they were based solely on Gödel's claim that there is a close > relationship between them. But saying two things are closely related > does not mean they are the same. > > G asserts a claim about arithmetic. It asserts nothing about itself. > > André > From the quote below: We are therefore confronted with a proposition which asserts its own unprovability. Gödel says: 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. Tarski proof is based on this exact same thing in its first step: https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf (1) x ⋶ Pr if and only if p where the symbol 'p' represents the whole sentence x and Pr means Provable This is a Tarski was of saying: "a proposition which asserts its own unprovability." -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-05 22:24 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] |
| Message-ID | <8F%cK.42$t72a.1@fx10.iad> |
| In reply to | #12952 |
On 5/5/22 1:57 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/4/2022 9:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 5/4/22 10:30 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/3/2022 7:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 5/2/22 11:01 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 5/2/2022 9:21 PM, Ben wrote: >>>>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 5/2/2022 6:43 PM, Ben wrote: >>>>>>>> Aleksy Grabowski <hurufu@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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 provable. Proofs abound. I was pointing out one in a proper >>>>>> proof >>>>>> assistant, Coq. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It is OK that you are not a math guy. >>>>> If you were a math guy you would understand that if G is provable >>>>> then that makes Gödel totally wrong. G is not Gödel's theorem, it >>>>> is a key element of his theorem. >>>>> >>>>> Incomplete T means that there exists a φ such that φ is not >>>>> provable or refutable in formal system T. >>>>> >>>>> Incomplete(T) ↔ ∃φ ((T ⊬ φ) ∧ (T ⊬ ¬φ)). >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> No, G IS provable, just not in the system F that G is described in, >>>> thus F is Incomplete by your definition above. >>>> >>>> Part of the key of the Godel proof is that while G sort of refers to >>>> itself, it does it in a way that F can't handle, so in F, G doesn't >>>> refer to itself but just "some statement", but in a 'more advanced' >>>> version of F, say F', we can see that relationship, and show that G >>>> must be true, proving it in F', but not in F, thus F is incomplete. >>>> >>> >>> Tarski's hierarchy of languages. >>> >>> It only works at a higher level language because the expression of >>> language at the next level is not self-contradictory. >>> >>> All epistemological antinomies are self-contradictory making them >>> semantically invalid. >>> >>> In his undefinability proof: (only two pages long) >>> https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf >>> >>> He defines these two levels as "the theory" and the next higher level >>> is called the "the metatheory". (see link). >> >> So we can prove G in the Metatheory, > > Yes. > >> so it is True in the Theory too. >> > > Not at all. > In the theory p is self-contradictory thus not a truth bearer. > In the meta-theory p is NOT self-contradictory. How do you get that. In the Theory, you can't even tell that G references itself, but is just a statement about mathematics. > >>> since in this interpretation the sentence x, which contains no >>> specific term of the metatheory, is its o\vn correlate, the proof of >>> the sentence x given in the metatheory can automatically be carried >>> over into the theory itself: the sentence x which is undecidable in >>> the original theory becomes a decidable sentence in the enriched theory. >> >> But if G is true in the Theory, it is BY DEFINITION not provable in >> the Theory, so the space of the Theory is shown to have a True >> Statement which is not provable, thus the system of the Theory in >> Incomplete. > > G is self-contradictory on the theory and non self-contradictory in the > meta-theory. No, because in the theory, G doesn't even reference itself, so it can't be self-contradictory. I think you don't even know what G is, but have only read the clift notes edition that actually explain it in the meta-theory. > >>> >>> >>>> We can then show that we can make a G' in F' with the same property, >>>> and thus show that there exists a system F'' where we can prove G'. >>>> >>>> This is why you simplification doesn't work. In F, we can't convert >>>> G into the statement G says that G is unprovable, but we can in F', >>>> thus the statement in F' is that G says that G in unprovable in F, >>>> and that statement is provable in F' >>>> >>> >>> Likewise for the liar Paradox. Apparently Tarski could prove the Liar >>> Paradox in his meta-theory. >>> >>>> You don't seem to be able to handle the concept of layers of logic >>>> systems. >>>> >>> >>> >> > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-05 21:37 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] |
| Message-ID | <t521m1$u43$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #12955 |
On 5/5/2022 9:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/5/22 1:57 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/4/2022 9:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 5/4/22 10:30 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/3/2022 7:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 5/2/22 11:01 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 5/2/2022 9:21 PM, Ben wrote: >>>>>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 5/2/2022 6:43 PM, Ben wrote: >>>>>>>>> Aleksy Grabowski <hurufu@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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 provable. Proofs abound. I was pointing out one in a >>>>>>> proper proof >>>>>>> assistant, Coq. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It is OK that you are not a math guy. >>>>>> If you were a math guy you would understand that if G is provable >>>>>> then that makes Gödel totally wrong. G is not Gödel's theorem, it >>>>>> is a key element of his theorem. >>>>>> >>>>>> Incomplete T means that there exists a φ such that φ is not >>>>>> provable or refutable in formal system T. >>>>>> >>>>>> Incomplete(T) ↔ ∃φ ((T ⊬ φ) ∧ (T ⊬ ¬φ)). >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> No, G IS provable, just not in the system F that G is described in, >>>>> thus F is Incomplete by your definition above. >>>>> >>>>> Part of the key of the Godel proof is that while G sort of refers >>>>> to itself, it does it in a way that F can't handle, so in F, G >>>>> doesn't refer to itself but just "some statement", but in a 'more >>>>> advanced' version of F, say F', we can see that relationship, and >>>>> show that G must be true, proving it in F', but not in F, thus F is >>>>> incomplete. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Tarski's hierarchy of languages. >>>> >>>> It only works at a higher level language because the expression of >>>> language at the next level is not self-contradictory. >>>> >>>> All epistemological antinomies are self-contradictory making them >>>> semantically invalid. >>>> >>>> In his undefinability proof: (only two pages long) >>>> https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf >>>> >>>> He defines these two levels as "the theory" and the next higher >>>> level is called the "the metatheory". (see link). >>> >>> So we can prove G in the Metatheory, >> >> Yes. >> >>> so it is True in the Theory too. >>> >> >> Not at all. >> In the theory p is self-contradictory thus not a truth bearer. >> In the meta-theory p is NOT self-contradictory. > > How do you get that. > In Tarski's theory p <is> the formalized liar paradox. > In the Theory, you can't even tell that G references itself, but is just > a statement about mathematics. > >> >>>> since in this interpretation the sentence x, which contains no >>>> specific term of the metatheory, is its o\vn correlate, the proof of >>>> the sentence x given in the metatheory can automatically be carried >>>> over into the theory itself: the sentence x which is undecidable in >>>> the original theory becomes a decidable sentence in the enriched >>>> theory. >>> >>> But if G is true in the Theory, it is BY DEFINITION not provable in >>> the Theory, so the space of the Theory is shown to have a True >>> Statement which is not provable, thus the system of the Theory in >>> Incomplete. >> >> G is self-contradictory on the theory and non self-contradictory in >> the meta-theory. > > No, because in the theory, G doesn't even reference itself, so it can't > be self-contradictory. > Gödel says: ...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which asserts its own unprovability. > I think you don't even know what G is, but have only read the clift > notes edition that actually explain it in the meta-theory. >> >>>> >>>> >>>>> We can then show that we can make a G' in F' with the same >>>>> property, and thus show that there exists a system F'' where we can >>>>> prove G'. >>>>> >>>>> This is why you simplification doesn't work. In F, we can't convert >>>>> G into the statement G says that G is unprovable, but we can in F', >>>>> thus the statement in F' is that G says that G in unprovable in F, >>>>> and that statement is provable in F' >>>>> >>>> >>>> Likewise for the liar Paradox. Apparently Tarski could prove the >>>> Liar Paradox in his meta-theory. >>>> >>>>> You don't seem to be able to handle the concept of layers of logic >>>>> systems. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-06 07:43 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] |
| Message-ID | <aR7dK.408$Acq9.201@fx13.iad> |
| In reply to | #12956 |
On 5/5/22 10:37 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/5/2022 9:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 5/5/22 1:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>> G is self-contradictory on the theory and non self-contradictory in >>> the meta-theory. >> >> No, because in the theory, G doesn't even reference itself, so it >> can't be self-contradictory. >> > > Gödel says: > ...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which asserts its own > unprovability. > Which is Godel making a comment about G, and not a statement in G itself. G does not directly mention itself in the Theory. >> I think you don't even know what G is, but have only read the clift >> notes edition that actually explain it in the meta-theory. > > So this comment of mine is now proven. And you have prooved to be a Liar and an idiot, as you abolutely don't know what you are talking about.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-06 15:29 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] |
| Message-ID | <t540g5$jst$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #12958 |
On 5/6/2022 6:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > > On 5/5/22 10:37 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/5/2022 9:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 5/5/22 1:57 PM, olcott wrote: > >>>> G is self-contradictory on the theory and non self-contradictory in >>>> the meta-theory. >>> >>> No, because in the theory, G doesn't even reference itself, so it >>> can't be self-contradictory. >>> >> >> Gödel says: >> ...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which asserts its >> own unprovability. >> > > Which is Godel making a comment about G, and not a statement in G itself. > > G does not directly mention itself in the Theory. Gödel says that it does with dodgy words that also says that it does not. 15 In spite of appearances, there is nothing circular about such a proposition, since it begins by asserting the unprovability of a wholly determinate formula (namely the q-th in the alphabetical arrangement with a definite substitution), and only subsequently (and in some way by accident)does it emerge that this formula is precisely that by which the proposition was itself expressed.END:(Gödel 1931:39-41) Gödel's footnote 15 is dodgy in that although it denies the circularity of his proposition he affirms its circularity in the same paragraph that he denies it: Removing the dodgy words from the above. a proposition...begins by asserting the unprovability of a wholly determinate formula...this formula is precisely that by which the proposition was itself expressed. Paraphrasing the above using less clumsy words: a proposition asserts the unprovability of a formula that expresses this same proposition https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350789898_Prolog_detects_and_rejects_pathological_self_reference_in_the_Godel_sentence > >>> I think you don't even know what G is, but have only read the clift >>> notes edition that actually explain it in the meta-theory. >> >> > > So this comment of mine is now proven. > > And you have prooved to be a Liar and an idiot, as you abolutely don't > know what you are talking about. -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-03 15:59 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <874k26slv4.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #12907 |
olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: > On 5/2/2022 9:21 PM, Ben wrote: >> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> On 5/2/2022 6:43 PM, Ben wrote: >>>> Aleksy Grabowski <hurufu@gmail.com> writes: >> >>>>> 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 provable. Proofs abound. I was pointing out one in a proper proof >> assistant, Coq. > > It is OK that you are not a math guy. You are not a math guy. I am. > If you were a math guy you would understand that if G is provable then > that makes Gödel totally wrong. G is not Gödel's theorem, it is a key > element of his theorem. No. G is provable. Though I did make a mistake -- the link was to a proof of G-RIT not G. How are you getting on with E and specifying P? Have you given up? -- Ben. "le génie humain a des limites, quand la bêtise humaine n’en a pas" Alexandre Dumas (fils)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-03 09:18 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <t4rh4c$t51$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #12905 |
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. 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). Gödel never claims *any* antinomy is equivalent to his G. Merely that a close relationship holds. And all my comments concerned exactly what that relationship is. André -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.prolog
csiph-web