Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #135431 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-11-12 08:45 -0600 |
| Last post | 2025-12-07 13:17 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 449 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 08:45 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 11:57 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-12 18:12 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 12:31 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-12 18:46 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 13:11 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 13:33 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-12 20:17 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 14:45 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 02:25 +0000
D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 20:34 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 02:42 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 19:49 -0800
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 22:36 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-11-13 08:54 +0100
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 00:21 -0800
How to handle pathological cases (was Re: ...) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-11-13 11:18 +0100
Re: How to handle pathological cases (was Re: ...) Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2025-11-13 12:14 +0000
Re: How to handle pathological cases (was Re: ...) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 07:06 -0800
Re: How to handle pathological cases (was Re: ...) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 09:28 -0600
Re: How to handle pathological cases (was Re: ...) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 09:15 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 09:22 -0600
Any article that contains the string "olcott" is junk (Was: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2025-11-13 12:36 +0000
Re: Any article that contains the string "olcott" is junk (Was: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-11-13 13:49 +0100
Re: Any article that contains the string "olcott" is junk (Was: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2025-11-13 12:55 +0000
Re: Any article that contains the string "olcott" is junk (Was: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 09:26 -0600
Re: Any article that contains the string "olcott" is junk (Was: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 09:24 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 22:53 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 04:42 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-14 20:59 -0500
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-12 20:49 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-13 11:18 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 10:06 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 19:04 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 15:18 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-14 10:53 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 08:33 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-14 14:56 +0000
Libelous statements that meet the burden of proof of reckless disregard of the truth olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 09:33 -0600
Re: Statements that are true, with full regard for the truth Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-14 15:52 +0000
Libelous statements that meet the burden of proof of reckless disregard of the truth olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 10:03 -0600
Re: Statements that are true, with full regard for the truth dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-14 09:05 -0800
Re: Statements that are true, with full regard for the truth Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-14 17:52 +0000
Re: Statements that are true, with full regard for the truth olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 12:16 -0600
Re: Statements that are true, with full regard for the truth dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-14 12:59 -0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 11:45 -0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 20:09 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 14:30 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-14 20:43 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 14:58 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-15 11:59 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-15 13:31 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-16 08:49 +0000
"true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 10:01 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-16 22:20 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 20:08 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-17 13:21 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 07:46 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-17 17:00 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 11:04 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-17 17:29 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 11:36 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-17 21:11 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 17:23 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-17 23:38 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 17:45 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-18 00:01 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 18:34 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-18 13:45 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 09:15 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-18 02:28 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 21:51 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-18 13:16 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-18 02:23 +0000
eric is not a crank dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 11:41 -0800
Re: eric is not a crank olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 13:44 -0600
Re: eric is not a crank Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-17 20:34 +0000
Re: eric is not a crank olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 14:45 -0600
Re: eric is not a crank dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 13:24 -0800
Re: eric is not a crank dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 13:30 -0800
Re: eric is not a crank olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 16:20 -0600
Re: eric is not a crank dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 15:03 -0800
Re: eric is not a crank olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 17:35 -0600
polcott agrees with the halting problem dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 16:06 -0800
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 18:31 -0600
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 19:43 -0500
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 18:46 -0800
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-18 03:07 +0000
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 19:10 -0800
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 19:36 -0800
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 21:18 -0800
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 15:10 -0800
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-18 17:40 -0800
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 19:46 -0600
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-19 17:17 +0000
help i'm stuck in a liar's paradox dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-19 10:43 -0800
Re: help i'm stuck in a liar's paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 18:48 +0000
Re: help i'm stuck in a liar's paradox dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-19 11:19 -0800
Re: help i'm stuck in a liar's paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 19:47 +0000
Re: help i'm stuck in a liar's paradox --- TXR and AWK olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 14:49 -0600
Re: help i'm stuck in a liar's paradox dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-19 21:01 -0800
Re: help i'm stuck in a liar's paradox olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 14:18 -0600
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 13:03 -0800
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-18 03:45 +0000
polcott agrees the halting problem is wrong olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 22:07 -0600
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-19 17:41 +0000
polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 12:37 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-19 20:55 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 15:05 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 21:41 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 21:12 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-20 04:42 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 22:57 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 13:22 -0800
Re: polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-20 22:10 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 14:56 -0800
polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 17:24 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 15:27 -0800
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-21 02:42 +0000
polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 20:50 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 19:10 -0800
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-21 04:12 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-21 04:13 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 20:23 -0800
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 22:41 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-21 05:04 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-21 09:19 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-21 17:29 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-21 12:15 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-21 18:22 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-21 19:18 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-21 13:33 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-21 22:05 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2025-11-21 23:14 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-11-22 05:39 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 07:05 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 07:00 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 07:26 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-22 19:29 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 13:44 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-22 20:07 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 14:13 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-23 04:09 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-23 04:07 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-23 04:20 +0000
Glossary of names in my termination analyzer system olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 22:50 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-21 22:12 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-21 21:56 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 02:54 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-21 23:06 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 18:07 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 18:07 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-21 13:42 -0800
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 18:10 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-22 19:36 +0000
polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect --- is libel against him olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 20:00 -0600
polcott agrees that the halting problem is incorrect in this way olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 21:47 -0600
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-18 23:47 +0000
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 00:13 +0000
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-19 00:57 +0000
polcott has shwn that the halting problem is incorrect olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 18:17 -0600
Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 18:24 -0600
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 01:06 +0000
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 01:07 +0000
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 19:41 -0600
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-19 18:20 +0000
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 12:49 -0600
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 19:18 +0000
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 12:40 -0800
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 12:44 -0800
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-20 01:56 +0000
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 20:19 -0600
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 13:25 -0800
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-20 22:05 +0000
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 15:43 -0800
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 21:03 +0000
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 21:13 -0600
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-19 10:26 -0800
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-19 19:42 +0000
polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect --- quit lying about what I say olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 14:45 -0600
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 12:51 -0800
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2025-11-19 16:04 -0700
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 17:43 -0600
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-20 00:04 +0000
homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-19 18:08 -0800
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-20 02:29 +0000
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-19 18:49 -0800
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-20 02:58 +0000
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-19 19:53 -0800
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-20 19:55 +0000
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-20 12:03 -0800
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-20 20:14 +0000
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-20 20:24 +0000
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-20 07:22 +0000
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-20 20:53 +0000
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-11-20 21:09 +0000
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-20 13:35 -0800
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-20 22:06 +0000
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-20 13:50 -0800
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 18:10 -0800
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 21:37 -0600
Re: eric is not a crank Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 23:28 +0000
Re: eric is not a crank "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 13:33 -0800
Re: eric is not a crank dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 13:44 -0800
Re: eric is not a crank olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 16:49 -0600
Re: eric is not a crank Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 22:39 +0000
Re: eric is not a crank Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-18 23:21 +0000
Re: eric is not a crank Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-18 23:36 +0000
Re: eric is not a crank olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 17:43 -0600
Re: eric is not a crank "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 16:06 -0800
Re: eric is not a crank Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-19 18:24 +0000
Re: eric is not a crank olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 17:40 -0600
the halting problem is founded in computer science dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 13:22 -0800
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 16:48 -0600
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-18 13:36 +0000
the halting problem is founded in computer science not math olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 08:50 -0600
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science not math Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-18 20:02 +0000
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science not math olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 14:12 -0600
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-18 13:04 -0800
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-19 18:36 +0000
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2025-11-19 23:36 +0000
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2025-11-19 17:53 -0600
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-20 00:01 +0000
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-20 00:01 +0000
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 21:11 -0600
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-20 20:05 +0000
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-19 18:15 -0800
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2025-11-20 23:15 +0000
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-20 23:38 -0800
Making True(Language L, Expression E) always computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-21 09:09 -0600
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2025-11-22 03:02 +0000
halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2025-11-21 21:34 -0600
Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-22 04:26 +0000
Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 06:08 +0000
Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 07:16 -0600
Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 16:45 +0000
Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 11:14 -0600
Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 17:44 +0000
Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 11:48 -0600
Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 18:05 +0000
Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-23 04:13 +0000
Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-23 04:11 +0000
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-21 20:14 -0800
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-19 18:25 -0800
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-20 07:46 +0000
"great now there's n+1 formal systems" reports dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-20 02:24 -0800
Re: "great now there's n+1 formal systems" reports Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-20 14:41 +0000
Re: "great now there's n+1 formal systems" reports dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-20 12:03 -0800
Re: "great now there's n+1 formal systems" reports Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-20 20:39 +0000
Re: "great now there's n+1 formal systems" reports dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-21 10:59 -0800
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2025-11-20 23:17 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 21:41 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 13:50 -0800
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-17 22:15 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-17 22:45 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-17 22:54 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 23:05 +0000
The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 16:59 -0600
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 23:22 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-18 06:40 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-19 01:03 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 19:36 -0600
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-19 18:51 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 14:22 -0600
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 20:55 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 21:24 -0600
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-20 04:46 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 22:58 -0600
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-20 08:06 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 08:12 -0600
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 10:15 -0500
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-22 18:42 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 13:06 -0600
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-20 20:49 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-21 13:50 -0600
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-21 22:05 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-19 02:47 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 21:04 -0600
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-21 01:14 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-21 01:28 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 22:00 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 22:59 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 15:09 -0800
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-17 23:31 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 17:39 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-17 23:48 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 16:00 -0800
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 18:07 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-18 00:19 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 18:58 -0800
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 21:40 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-18 11:02 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 17:36 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-18 06:48 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 22:41 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 15:10 -0800
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 23:33 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 16:04 -0800
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 18:26 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-18 02:16 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 19:02 -0800
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 21:43 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-18 12:57 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-18 12:52 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 16:54 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 20:51 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 17:20 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 23:44 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 22:44 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-18 06:40 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 08:04 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-18 21:58 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 16:56 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 17:04 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 07:52 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-17 16:01 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 10:29 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-16 18:55 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-16 21:43 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 18:48 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 04:09 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 13:24 -0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 09:38 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 12:59 -0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 05:28 +0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 00:44 -0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 19:37 +0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-16 09:32 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-15 13:11 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-15 13:03 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 14:39 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-15 06:43 -0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 15:29 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 09:41 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-15 16:32 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 11:03 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-15 17:24 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 11:38 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-15 18:06 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 12:50 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 03:30 +0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 13:55 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 04:04 +0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 14:14 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 04:25 +0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 14:48 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 21:55 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 16:18 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 13:05 -0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-15 11:56 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 09:51 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-15 16:35 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 11:05 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-15 17:27 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 11:40 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-15 18:08 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 12:53 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 20:31 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 14:55 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 22:02 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-15 22:54 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 23:30 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 17:32 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-16 00:10 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-16 18:44 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 18:41 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 17:22 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-16 01:07 +0000
Rejecting expressions of formal language having infinite loops --- G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 19:29 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having infinite loops --- G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-16 19:11 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having infinite loops --- G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 18:52 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having infinite loops --- G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-17 01:45 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having infinite loops --- G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 20:13 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having infinite loops --- G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-17 03:41 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having infinite loops --- G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 21:50 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having infinite loops --- G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-17 04:04 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-16 10:55 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 14:37 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-17 11:11 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 07:44 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-18 11:26 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 09:51 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-19 11:53 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 07:02 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 18:13 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-20 10:08 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 13:27 -0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-12 18:39 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 12:52 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 02:36 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 20:57 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 03:22 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 22:43 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 08:44 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 09:38 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 18:57 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-16 15:45 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-14 00:09 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 18:45 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-14 01:02 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 20:29 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-14 13:09 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 07:42 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-14 01:14 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 20:33 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 10:45 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 02:22 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 20:32 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 02:38 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 22:48 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-11-13 04:50 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 23:00 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 00:16 -0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-13 11:05 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 10:00 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-14 11:01 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 08:42 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-26 12:30 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 09:27 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-26 19:46 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 14:07 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 21:00 -0500
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-01 14:45 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 09:18 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-27 10:22 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 00:39 -0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-27 10:20 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 09:49 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-27 12:27 -0500
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-28 10:45 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 09:22 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-29 12:28 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-14 00:56 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-14 11:09 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-14 13:20 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 08:49 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-26 12:17 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 09:20 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 10:25 -0500
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-27 10:17 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 09:48 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-28 10:40 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 09:21 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-28 11:03 -0500
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-29 12:31 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 12:01 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-01 12:18 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 06:45 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-07 13:17 +0200
Page 22 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 20 21 [22] 23 Next page →
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-26 14:07 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10g7mm7$nqtg$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136602 |
On 11/26/2025 1:46 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote: > On 26/11/2025 15:27, olcott wrote: >> This is formalized in the Prolog programming language >> ?- LP = not(true(LP)). >> LP = not(true(LP)). >> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). >> false. > > Why do you keep posting that? > Until it is accepted or someone correctly shows how it does not once-and-for-all resolve the Liar Paradox I will keep posting it. The ONLY way that I can possibly have any success with these kind of things is to have 1000-fold more persistence than the next most persistent person. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable. This required establishing a new foundation for correct reasoning.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-26 21:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <0hOVQ.46066$5c64.45310@fx10.iad> |
| In reply to | #136606 |
On 11/26/25 3:07 PM, olcott wrote: > On 11/26/2025 1:46 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote: >> On 26/11/2025 15:27, olcott wrote: >>> This is formalized in the Prolog programming language >>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)). >>> LP = not(true(LP)). >>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). >>> false. >> >> Why do you keep posting that? >> > > Until it is accepted or someone correctly shows > how it does not once-and-for-all resolve > the Liar Paradox I will keep posting it. > > The ONLY way that I can possibly have > any success with these kind of things > is to have 1000-fold more persistence > than the next most persistent person. > > But since the statement isn't the statment G of Godel, it is just a red herring. The problem is that Prolog just can't handle the logic of Godel, and it seems neither can you. It seems, you just don't understand how logic works, but just try to flim-flam people with fancy words that you just don't understand.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-01 14:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10gk9m8$1dhee$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136606 |
On 26/11/2025 20:07, olcott wrote: > On 11/26/2025 1:46 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote: >> On 26/11/2025 15:27, olcott wrote: >>> This is formalized in the Prolog programming language >>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)). >>> LP = not(true(LP)). >>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). >>> false. >> >> Why do you keep posting that? >> > > Until it is accepted or someone correctly shows > how it does not once-and-for-all resolve > the Liar Paradox I will keep posting it. Can you show how it /does/ ? -- Tristan Wibberley The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may, of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-01 09:18 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10gkbjc$1eeh3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #137001 |
On 12/1/2025 8:45 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote: > On 26/11/2025 20:07, olcott wrote: >> On 11/26/2025 1:46 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote: >>> On 26/11/2025 15:27, olcott wrote: >>>> This is formalized in the Prolog programming language >>>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)). >>>> LP = not(true(LP)). >>>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). >>>> false. >>> >>> Why do you keep posting that? >>> >> >> Until it is accepted or someone correctly shows >> how it does not once-and-for-all resolve >> the Liar Paradox I will keep posting it. > > Can you show how it /does/ ? > Been there done that many times no one cares. BEGIN:(Clocksin & Mellish 2003:254) Finally, a note about how Prolog matching sometimes differs from the unification used in Resolution. Most Prolog systems will allow you to satisfy goals like: equal(X, X). ?- equal(foo(Y), Y). that is, they will allow you to match a term against an uninstantiated subterm of itself. In this example, foo(Y) is matched against Y, which appears within it. As a result, Y will stand for foo(Y), which is foo(foo(Y)) (because of what Y stands for), which is foo(foo(foo(Y))), and so on. So Y ends up standing for some kind of infinite structure. END:(Clocksin & Mellish 2003:254) LP = not(true(LP)). not(true(not(true(not(true(not(true(LP)))))))). expands to not(true(not(true(not(true(not(true(...)))))))). -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable. This required establishing a new foundation for correct reasoning.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-27 10:22 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <10g91og$17cln$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136602 |
Tristan Wibberley kirjoitti 26.11.2025 klo 21.46: > On 26/11/2025 15:27, olcott wrote: >> This is formalized in the Prolog programming language >> ?- LP = not(true(LP)). >> LP = not(true(LP)). >> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). >> false. > > Why do you keep posting that? In order to distract from the facts he doesn't want to face. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-27 00:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <10g92ns$14eiv$20@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136671 |
On 11/27/2025 12:22 AM, Mikko wrote: > Tristan Wibberley kirjoitti 26.11.2025 klo 21.46: >> On 26/11/2025 15:27, olcott wrote: >>> This is formalized in the Prolog programming language >>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)). >>> LP = not(true(LP)). >>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). >>> false. >> >> Why do you keep posting that? > > In order to distract from the facts he doesn't want to face. > ditto.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-27 10:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <10g91kv$17cln$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136582 |
olcott kirjoitti 26.11.2025 klo 17.27: > On 11/26/2025 4:30 AM, Mikko wrote: >> olcott kirjoitti 14.11.2025 klo 16.42: >>> On 11/14/2025 3:01 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2025-11-13 16:00:58 +0000, olcott said: >>>> >>>>> On 11/13/2025 3:05 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 2025-11-12 14:45:34 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Rejecting expressions of formal language >>>>>>> having pathological self-reference >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Explained how expressions with pathological self >>>>>>> reference can simply be rejected as semantically/ >>>>>>> syntactically unsound thus preventing undefinability, >>>>>>> and undecidability. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" >>>>>>> is true only because the inner sentence is semantically >>>>>>> unsound. The inner sentence is formalized in Minimal >>>>>>> Type Theory as LP := ~True(LP). >>>>>>> (where A := B means A is defined as B). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://philpapers.org/rec/OLCREO >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Can someone review my actual reasoning >>>>>>> elaborated in the paper? >>>>>> >>>>>> If you want to use the term "formal language" you must prove that >>>>>> there is a Turing machine that can determine whether a string is a >>>>>> valid sentence of your language. If no such Turing machine exists >>>>>> you have no justifiction for the use of the word "formal". >>>>> >>>>> Been there done that and provided all the details. >>>> >>>> Where? At least not where the above pointer points to. >>>> >>> >>> In the paper that you failed to read. >>> https://www.researchgate.net/ >>> publication/397533139_Rejecting_expressions_of_formal_language_having_pathological_self-reference >> >> In that article there is no proof that there is no proof that there is a >> Turing machine that can determine whether a string is a valid sentence >> of your lanugage. The article does not even mention Turing machine. >> > > It is all the deep meaning of unify_with_occurs_check() > that rejects an expression as semantically unsound > because its evaluation is stuck in an infinite loop. > > > The Liar Paradox formalized in the Prolog Programming language > > This sentence is not true. > It is not true about what? > It is not true about being not true. > It is not true about being not true about what? > It is not true about being not true about being not true. > Oh I see you are stuck in a loop! > > This is formalized in the Prolog programming language > ?- LP = not(true(LP)). > LP = not(true(LP)). > ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). > false. > > Failing an occurs check seems to mean that the resolution of an > expression remains stuck in an infinite loop. Just as the formalized > Prolog determines that there is a cycle in the directed graph of the > evaluation sequence of LP the simple English proves that the Liar > Paradox never gets to the point. It has merely been semantically unsound > all these years. All ot that is irrelevant to your lie about where the proof is. That you chose to lie about it and then to distract is a strong indication that you have no proof but prefer to lie otherwise. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-27 09:49 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10g9rum$1ho8b$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136670 |
On 11/27/2025 2:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
> olcott kirjoitti 26.11.2025 klo 17.27:
>> On 11/26/2025 4:30 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> olcott kirjoitti 14.11.2025 klo 16.42:
>>>> On 11/14/2025 3:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-11-13 16:00:58 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/13/2025 3:05 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2025-11-12 14:45:34 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Rejecting expressions of formal language
>>>>>>>> having pathological self-reference
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Explained how expressions with pathological self
>>>>>>>> reference can simply be rejected as semantically/
>>>>>>>> syntactically unsound thus preventing undefinability,
>>>>>>>> and undecidability.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true"
>>>>>>>> is true only because the inner sentence is semantically
>>>>>>>> unsound. The inner sentence is formalized in Minimal
>>>>>>>> Type Theory as LP := ~True(LP).
>>>>>>>> (where A := B means A is defined as B).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://philpapers.org/rec/OLCREO
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Can someone review my actual reasoning
>>>>>>>> elaborated in the paper?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you want to use the term "formal language" you must prove that
>>>>>>> there is a Turing machine that can determine whether a string is a
>>>>>>> valid sentence of your language. If no such Turing machine exists
>>>>>>> you have no justifiction for the use of the word "formal".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Been there done that and provided all the details.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where? At least not where the above pointer points to.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In the paper that you failed to read.
>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/
>>>> publication/397533139_Rejecting_expressions_of_formal_language_having_pathological_self-reference
>>>
>>> In that article there is no proof that there is no proof that there is a
>>> Turing machine that can determine whether a string is a valid sentence
>>> of your lanugage. The article does not even mention Turing machine.
>>>
>>
>> It is all the deep meaning of unify_with_occurs_check()
>> that rejects an expression as semantically unsound
>> because its evaluation is stuck in an infinite loop.
>>
>>
>> The Liar Paradox formalized in the Prolog Programming language
>>
>> This sentence is not true.
>> It is not true about what?
>> It is not true about being not true.
>> It is not true about being not true about what?
>> It is not true about being not true about being not true.
>> Oh I see you are stuck in a loop!
>>
>> This is formalized in the Prolog programming language
>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)).
>> LP = not(true(LP)).
>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
>> false.
>>
>> Failing an occurs check seems to mean that the resolution of an
>> expression remains stuck in an infinite loop. Just as the formalized
>> Prolog determines that there is a cycle in the directed graph of the
>> evaluation sequence of LP the simple English proves that the Liar
>> Paradox never gets to the point. It has merely been semantically
>> unsound all these years.
>
> All ot that is irrelevant to your lie about where the proof is.
> That you chose to lie about it and then to distract is a strong
> indication that you have no proof but prefer to lie otherwise.
>
Formalized in Olcott's Minimal Type Theory
LP := ~True(LP) // LP {is defined as} ~True(LP)
that expands to ~True(~True(~True(~True(~True(~True(...))))))
https://philarchive.org/archive/PETMTT-4v2
The Liar Paradox fails because its specifies
infinite recursion.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott
My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning" computable.
This required establishing a new foundation
for correct reasoning.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-27 12:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <PR%VQ.37982$fE57.30279@fx15.iad> |
| In reply to | #136699 |
On 11/27/25 10:49 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/27/2025 2:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> olcott kirjoitti 26.11.2025 klo 17.27:
>>> On 11/26/2025 4:30 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> olcott kirjoitti 14.11.2025 klo 16.42:
>>>>> On 11/14/2025 3:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-11-13 16:00:58 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 11/13/2025 3:05 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-12 14:45:34 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Rejecting expressions of formal language
>>>>>>>>> having pathological self-reference
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Explained how expressions with pathological self
>>>>>>>>> reference can simply be rejected as semantically/
>>>>>>>>> syntactically unsound thus preventing undefinability,
>>>>>>>>> and undecidability.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true"
>>>>>>>>> is true only because the inner sentence is semantically
>>>>>>>>> unsound. The inner sentence is formalized in Minimal
>>>>>>>>> Type Theory as LP := ~True(LP).
>>>>>>>>> (where A := B means A is defined as B).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://philpapers.org/rec/OLCREO
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Can someone review my actual reasoning
>>>>>>>>> elaborated in the paper?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you want to use the term "formal language" you must prove that
>>>>>>>> there is a Turing machine that can determine whether a string is a
>>>>>>>> valid sentence of your language. If no such Turing machine exists
>>>>>>>> you have no justifiction for the use of the word "formal".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Been there done that and provided all the details.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where? At least not where the above pointer points to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In the paper that you failed to read.
>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/
>>>>> publication/397533139_Rejecting_expressions_of_formal_language_having_pathological_self-reference
>>>>
>>>> In that article there is no proof that there is no proof that there
>>>> is a
>>>> Turing machine that can determine whether a string is a valid sentence
>>>> of your lanugage. The article does not even mention Turing machine.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is all the deep meaning of unify_with_occurs_check()
>>> that rejects an expression as semantically unsound
>>> because its evaluation is stuck in an infinite loop.
>>>
>>>
>>> The Liar Paradox formalized in the Prolog Programming language
>>>
>>> This sentence is not true.
>>> It is not true about what?
>>> It is not true about being not true.
>>> It is not true about being not true about what?
>>> It is not true about being not true about being not true.
>>> Oh I see you are stuck in a loop!
>>>
>>> This is formalized in the Prolog programming language
>>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)).
>>> LP = not(true(LP)).
>>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
>>> false.
>>>
>>> Failing an occurs check seems to mean that the resolution of an
>>> expression remains stuck in an infinite loop. Just as the formalized
>>> Prolog determines that there is a cycle in the directed graph of the
>>> evaluation sequence of LP the simple English proves that the Liar
>>> Paradox never gets to the point. It has merely been semantically
>>> unsound all these years.
>>
>> All ot that is irrelevant to your lie about where the proof is.
>> That you chose to lie about it and then to distract is a strong
>> indication that you have no proof but prefer to lie otherwise.
>>
>
> Formalized in Olcott's Minimal Type Theory
> LP := ~True(LP) // LP {is defined as} ~True(LP)
> that expands to ~True(~True(~True(~True(~True(~True(...))))))
> https://philarchive.org/archive/PETMTT-4v2
>
> The Liar Paradox fails because its specifies
> infinite recursion.
>
In other words, Olcott's Minimal Type Theory is insufficient to express
some statements that have logical values.
Sorry, all you are doing is proving that you don't know what you are
talking about.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-28 10:45 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <10gbnee$2833a$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136699 |
olcott kirjoitti 27.11.2025 klo 17.49:
> On 11/27/2025 2:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> olcott kirjoitti 26.11.2025 klo 17.27:
>>> On 11/26/2025 4:30 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> olcott kirjoitti 14.11.2025 klo 16.42:
>>>>> On 11/14/2025 3:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-11-13 16:00:58 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 11/13/2025 3:05 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-12 14:45:34 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Rejecting expressions of formal language
>>>>>>>>> having pathological self-reference
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Explained how expressions with pathological self
>>>>>>>>> reference can simply be rejected as semantically/
>>>>>>>>> syntactically unsound thus preventing undefinability,
>>>>>>>>> and undecidability.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true"
>>>>>>>>> is true only because the inner sentence is semantically
>>>>>>>>> unsound. The inner sentence is formalized in Minimal
>>>>>>>>> Type Theory as LP := ~True(LP).
>>>>>>>>> (where A := B means A is defined as B).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://philpapers.org/rec/OLCREO
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Can someone review my actual reasoning
>>>>>>>>> elaborated in the paper?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you want to use the term "formal language" you must prove that
>>>>>>>> there is a Turing machine that can determine whether a string is a
>>>>>>>> valid sentence of your language. If no such Turing machine exists
>>>>>>>> you have no justifiction for the use of the word "formal".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Been there done that and provided all the details.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where? At least not where the above pointer points to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In the paper that you failed to read.
>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/
>>>>> publication/397533139_Rejecting_expressions_of_formal_language_having_pathological_self-reference
>>>>
>>>> In that article there is no proof that there is no proof that there
>>>> is a
>>>> Turing machine that can determine whether a string is a valid sentence
>>>> of your lanugage. The article does not even mention Turing machine.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is all the deep meaning of unify_with_occurs_check()
>>> that rejects an expression as semantically unsound
>>> because its evaluation is stuck in an infinite loop.
>>>
>>>
>>> The Liar Paradox formalized in the Prolog Programming language
>>>
>>> This sentence is not true.
>>> It is not true about what?
>>> It is not true about being not true.
>>> It is not true about being not true about what?
>>> It is not true about being not true about being not true.
>>> Oh I see you are stuck in a loop!
>>>
>>> This is formalized in the Prolog programming language
>>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)).
>>> LP = not(true(LP)).
>>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
>>> false.
>>>
>>> Failing an occurs check seems to mean that the resolution of an
>>> expression remains stuck in an infinite loop. Just as the formalized
>>> Prolog determines that there is a cycle in the directed graph of the
>>> evaluation sequence of LP the simple English proves that the Liar
>>> Paradox never gets to the point. It has merely been semantically
>>> unsound all these years.
>>
>> All ot that is irrelevant to your lie about where the proof is.
>> That you chose to lie about it and then to distract is a strong
>> indication that you have no proof but prefer to lie otherwise.
>>
>
> Formalized in Olcott's Minimal Type Theory
> LP := ~True(LP) // LP {is defined as} ~True(LP)
> that expands to ~True(~True(~True(~True(~True(~True(...))))))
> https://philarchive.org/archive/PETMTT-4v2
>
> The Liar Paradox fails because its specifies
> infinite recursion.
Irrelevant to your lie about where the proof is. That you chose to lie
about it and then to distract is a strong indication that you have no
proof but prefer to lie otherwise.
--
Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-28 09:22 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10gcemo$2h1f4$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136717 |
On 11/28/2025 2:45 AM, Mikko wrote:
> olcott kirjoitti 27.11.2025 klo 17.49:
>> On 11/27/2025 2:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> olcott kirjoitti 26.11.2025 klo 17.27:
>>>> On 11/26/2025 4:30 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 14.11.2025 klo 16.42:
>>>>>> On 11/14/2025 3:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2025-11-13 16:00:58 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 11/13/2025 3:05 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-12 14:45:34 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Rejecting expressions of formal language
>>>>>>>>>> having pathological self-reference
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Explained how expressions with pathological self
>>>>>>>>>> reference can simply be rejected as semantically/
>>>>>>>>>> syntactically unsound thus preventing undefinability,
>>>>>>>>>> and undecidability.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true"
>>>>>>>>>> is true only because the inner sentence is semantically
>>>>>>>>>> unsound. The inner sentence is formalized in Minimal
>>>>>>>>>> Type Theory as LP := ~True(LP).
>>>>>>>>>> (where A := B means A is defined as B).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://philpapers.org/rec/OLCREO
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Can someone review my actual reasoning
>>>>>>>>>> elaborated in the paper?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you want to use the term "formal language" you must prove that
>>>>>>>>> there is a Turing machine that can determine whether a string is a
>>>>>>>>> valid sentence of your language. If no such Turing machine exists
>>>>>>>>> you have no justifiction for the use of the word "formal".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Been there done that and provided all the details.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Where? At least not where the above pointer points to.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the paper that you failed to read.
>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/
>>>>>> publication/397533139_Rejecting_expressions_of_formal_language_having_pathological_self-reference
>>>>>
>>>>> In that article there is no proof that there is no proof that there
>>>>> is a
>>>>> Turing machine that can determine whether a string is a valid sentence
>>>>> of your lanugage. The article does not even mention Turing machine.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is all the deep meaning of unify_with_occurs_check()
>>>> that rejects an expression as semantically unsound
>>>> because its evaluation is stuck in an infinite loop.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Liar Paradox formalized in the Prolog Programming language
>>>>
>>>> This sentence is not true.
>>>> It is not true about what?
>>>> It is not true about being not true.
>>>> It is not true about being not true about what?
>>>> It is not true about being not true about being not true.
>>>> Oh I see you are stuck in a loop!
>>>>
>>>> This is formalized in the Prolog programming language
>>>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)).
>>>> LP = not(true(LP)).
>>>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
>>>> false.
>>>>
>>>> Failing an occurs check seems to mean that the resolution of an
>>>> expression remains stuck in an infinite loop. Just as the formalized
>>>> Prolog determines that there is a cycle in the directed graph of the
>>>> evaluation sequence of LP the simple English proves that the Liar
>>>> Paradox never gets to the point. It has merely been semantically
>>>> unsound all these years.
>>>
>>> All ot that is irrelevant to your lie about where the proof is.
>>> That you chose to lie about it and then to distract is a strong
>>> indication that you have no proof but prefer to lie otherwise.
>>>
>>
>> Formalized in Olcott's Minimal Type Theory
>> LP := ~True(LP) // LP {is defined as} ~True(LP)
>> that expands to ~True(~True(~True(~True(~True(~True(...))))))
>> https://philarchive.org/archive/PETMTT-4v2
>>
>> The Liar Paradox fails because its specifies
>> infinite recursion.
>
> Irrelevant to your lie about where the proof is. That you chose to lie
> about it and then to distract is a strong indication that you have no
> proof but prefer to lie otherwise.
>
In other words you are simply ignoring this
~True(~True(~True(~True(~True(~True(...))))))
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott
My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning" computable.
This required establishing a new foundation
for correct reasoning.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-29 12:28 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <10gehrl$38pe7$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136727 |
olcott kirjoitti 28.11.2025 klo 17.22:
> On 11/28/2025 2:45 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> olcott kirjoitti 27.11.2025 klo 17.49:
>>> On 11/27/2025 2:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> olcott kirjoitti 26.11.2025 klo 17.27:
>>>>> On 11/26/2025 4:30 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 14.11.2025 klo 16.42:
>>>>>>> On 11/14/2025 3:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-13 16:00:58 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 11/13/2025 3:05 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-12 14:45:34 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Rejecting expressions of formal language
>>>>>>>>>>> having pathological self-reference
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Explained how expressions with pathological self
>>>>>>>>>>> reference can simply be rejected as semantically/
>>>>>>>>>>> syntactically unsound thus preventing undefinability,
>>>>>>>>>>> and undecidability.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true"
>>>>>>>>>>> is true only because the inner sentence is semantically
>>>>>>>>>>> unsound. The inner sentence is formalized in Minimal
>>>>>>>>>>> Type Theory as LP := ~True(LP).
>>>>>>>>>>> (where A := B means A is defined as B).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://philpapers.org/rec/OLCREO
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Can someone review my actual reasoning
>>>>>>>>>>> elaborated in the paper?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you want to use the term "formal language" you must prove that
>>>>>>>>>> there is a Turing machine that can determine whether a string
>>>>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>>>> valid sentence of your language. If no such Turing machine exists
>>>>>>>>>> you have no justifiction for the use of the word "formal".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Been there done that and provided all the details.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Where? At least not where the above pointer points to.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the paper that you failed to read.
>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/
>>>>>>> publication/397533139_Rejecting_expressions_of_formal_language_having_pathological_self-reference
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In that article there is no proof that there is no proof that
>>>>>> there is a
>>>>>> Turing machine that can determine whether a string is a valid
>>>>>> sentence
>>>>>> of your lanugage. The article does not even mention Turing machine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is all the deep meaning of unify_with_occurs_check()
>>>>> that rejects an expression as semantically unsound
>>>>> because its evaluation is stuck in an infinite loop.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The Liar Paradox formalized in the Prolog Programming language
>>>>>
>>>>> This sentence is not true.
>>>>> It is not true about what?
>>>>> It is not true about being not true.
>>>>> It is not true about being not true about what?
>>>>> It is not true about being not true about being not true.
>>>>> Oh I see you are stuck in a loop!
>>>>>
>>>>> This is formalized in the Prolog programming language
>>>>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)).
>>>>> LP = not(true(LP)).
>>>>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
>>>>> false.
>>>>>
>>>>> Failing an occurs check seems to mean that the resolution of an
>>>>> expression remains stuck in an infinite loop. Just as the
>>>>> formalized Prolog determines that there is a cycle in the directed
>>>>> graph of the evaluation sequence of LP the simple English proves
>>>>> that the Liar Paradox never gets to the point. It has merely been
>>>>> semantically unsound all these years.
>>>>
>>>> All ot that is irrelevant to your lie about where the proof is.
>>>> That you chose to lie about it and then to distract is a strong
>>>> indication that you have no proof but prefer to lie otherwise.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Formalized in Olcott's Minimal Type Theory
>>> LP := ~True(LP) // LP {is defined as} ~True(LP)
>>> that expands to ~True(~True(~True(~True(~True(~True(...))))))
>>> https://philarchive.org/archive/PETMTT-4v2
>>>
>>> The Liar Paradox fails because its specifies
>>> infinite recursion.
>>
>> Irrelevant to your lie about where the proof is. That you chose to lie
>> about it and then to distract is a strong indication that you have no
>> proof but prefer to lie otherwise.
>
> In other words you are simply ignoring this
> ~True(~True(~True(~True(~True(~True(...))))))
Your new lie is irrelevant to your earlier lie about where the proof is.
--
Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-14 00:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10f5uni$2i47m$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135481 |
On 13/11/2025 09:05, Mikko wrote: > On 2025-11-12 14:45:34 +0000, olcott said: > >> ... formalized in Minimal >> Type Theory as LP := ~True(LP). >> (where A := B means A is defined as B). >> >> https://philpapers.org/rec/OLCREO >> >> Can someone review my actual reasoning >> elaborated in the paper? > > If you want to use the term "formal language" you must prove that > there is a Turing machine that can determine whether a string is a > valid sentence of your language. If no such Turing machine exists > you have no justifiction for the use of the word "formal". It looks, at a glance, like his system has no theorems with loops in them. The system is "safe" and very small. This should not be controversial. It is a very old idea. LP := ~True(LP) may be a sentence (or merely a formula) of the system, but not a theorem even if it's a sentence. I assume free indeterminates are forall quantified and LP is an indeterminate. -- Tristan Wibberley The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may, of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-14 11:09 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <10f6rkg$2o28d$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135522 |
On 2025-11-14 00:56:17 +0000, Tristan Wibberley said: > On 13/11/2025 09:05, Mikko wrote: >> On 2025-11-12 14:45:34 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> ... formalized in Minimal >>> Type Theory as LP := ~True(LP). >>> (where A := B means A is defined as B). >>> >>> https://philpapers.org/rec/OLCREO >>> >>> Can someone review my actual reasoning >>> elaborated in the paper? >> >> If you want to use the term "formal language" you must prove that >> there is a Turing machine that can determine whether a string is a >> valid sentence of your language. If no such Turing machine exists >> you have no justifiction for the use of the word "formal". > > It looks, at a glance, like his system has no theorems with loops in > them. The system is "safe" and very small. It does not look small. It seems to have very many postulates, perhaps infinitely many. The intent is that it be complete so it probably is only paraconsistent or perhaps even inconsistent. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-14 13:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10f7abl$2re59$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135550 |
On 14/11/2025 09:09, Mikko wrote: > It does not look small. It seems to have very many postulates, perhaps > infinitely many. The intent is that it be complete so it probably is > only paraconsistent or perhaps even inconsistent "The" intent? "Your" intent? Olcott's intent? Olcott seems to me to not have that intent. He only seems to want to express actual knowledge that is documented by humans at some point in time, not the ability to express a truth valuation for every possible arrangement of symbols which is not knowledge. Two very different things. You post sounds like when someone says to a painter "I want the room red", the painter says "'The' intent is to replicate the sistene chapel in triplicate at 10 times the scale. That can't fit in this room and the pigments don't exist anymore!" It's just an ordinary little red room. -- Tristan Wibberley The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may, of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-14 08:49 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10f7fhj$2tdq1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135550 |
On 11/14/2025 3:09 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2025-11-14 00:56:17 +0000, Tristan Wibberley said: > >> On 13/11/2025 09:05, Mikko wrote: >>> On 2025-11-12 14:45:34 +0000, olcott said: >>> >>>> ... formalized in Minimal >>>> Type Theory as LP := ~True(LP). >>>> (where A := B means A is defined as B). >>>> >>>> https://philpapers.org/rec/OLCREO >>>> >>>> Can someone review my actual reasoning >>>> elaborated in the paper? >>> >>> If you want to use the term "formal language" you must prove that >>> there is a Turing machine that can determine whether a string is a >>> valid sentence of your language. If no such Turing machine exists >>> you have no justifiction for the use of the word "formal". >> >> It looks, at a glance, like his system has no theorems with loops in >> them. The system is "safe" and very small. > > It does not look small. It seems to have very many postulates, perhaps > infinitely many. The intent is that it be complete so it probably is > only paraconsistent or perhaps even inconsistent. > My system rejects expressions of language that cannot possibly be resolved to a truth value because they have pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) Directed Graph of evaluatian sequence 00 ↔ 01 02 01 G 02 ¬ 03 03 Prov 04 04 Gödel_Number_of 01 // cycle LP := ~True(LP) Directed Graph of evaluatian sequence 00 ~ 01 01 True 00 // cycle https://www.researchgate.net/publication/397533139_Rejecting_expressions_of_formal_language_having_pathological_self-reference -- Copyright 2025 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 | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-26 12:17 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <10g6k4c$9m8m$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135569 |
olcott kirjoitti 14.11.2025 klo 16.49:
> On 11/14/2025 3:09 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-11-14 00:56:17 +0000, Tristan Wibberley said:
>>
>>> On 13/11/2025 09:05, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-11-12 14:45:34 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> ... formalized in Minimal
>>>>> Type Theory as LP := ~True(LP).
>>>>> (where A := B means A is defined as B).
>>>>>
>>>>> https://philpapers.org/rec/OLCREO
>>>>>
>>>>> Can someone review my actual reasoning
>>>>> elaborated in the paper?
>>>>
>>>> If you want to use the term "formal language" you must prove that
>>>> there is a Turing machine that can determine whether a string is a
>>>> valid sentence of your language. If no such Turing machine exists
>>>> you have no justifiction for the use of the word "formal".
>>>
>>> It looks, at a glance, like his system has no theorems with loops in
>>> them. The system is "safe" and very small.
>>
>> It does not look small. It seems to have very many postulates, perhaps
>> infinitely many. The intent is that it be complete so it probably is
>> only paraconsistent or perhaps even inconsistent.
>>
>
> My system rejects expressions of language that cannot
> possibly be resolved to a truth value because they have
> pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004)
>
> G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝)
That can be evaluated ir sufficient defitions are given. In particular,
the value of Prov('G') must be determinable. The value of G must be
either true or false, so even if it is not given or determinable it is
possible to evaluate the expression for both values. If the result is
the same then that is the value of the expression, otherwise the given
information is insufficient.
> LP := ~True(LP)
That is a definition. THe purpose of a definition is not to specify a
truth value. Languages that permit definitions the use of the same LP
on both sides of := is usually a syntax error.
--
Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-26 09:20 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10g75ro$gf3b$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136562 |
On 11/26/2025 4:17 AM, Mikko wrote:
> olcott kirjoitti 14.11.2025 klo 16.49:
>> On 11/14/2025 3:09 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2025-11-14 00:56:17 +0000, Tristan Wibberley said:
>>>
>>>> On 13/11/2025 09:05, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-11-12 14:45:34 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> ... formalized in Minimal
>>>>>> Type Theory as LP := ~True(LP).
>>>>>> (where A := B means A is defined as B).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://philpapers.org/rec/OLCREO
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can someone review my actual reasoning
>>>>>> elaborated in the paper?
>>>>>
>>>>> If you want to use the term "formal language" you must prove that
>>>>> there is a Turing machine that can determine whether a string is a
>>>>> valid sentence of your language. If no such Turing machine exists
>>>>> you have no justifiction for the use of the word "formal".
>>>>
>>>> It looks, at a glance, like his system has no theorems with loops in
>>>> them. The system is "safe" and very small.
>>>
>>> It does not look small. It seems to have very many postulates, perhaps
>>> infinitely many. The intent is that it be complete so it probably is
>>> only paraconsistent or perhaps even inconsistent.
>>>
>>
>> My system rejects expressions of language that cannot
>> possibly be resolved to a truth value because they have
>> pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004)
>>
>> G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝)
>
> That can be evaluated ir sufficient defitions are given. In particular,
Directed Graph of evaluation sequence
00 ↔ 01 02
01 G
02 ¬ 03
03 Prov 04
04 Gödel_Number_of 01 // cycle
?- G = not(provable(F, G)).
G = not(provable(F, G)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(G, not(provable(F, G))).
false.
You do not understand the deep meaning of
unify_with_occurs_check()
> the value of Prov('G') must be determinable. The value of G must be
> either true or false, so even if it is not given or determinable it is
> possible to evaluate the expression for both values. If the result is
> the same then that is the value of the expression, otherwise the given
> information is insufficient.
>
>> LP := ~True(LP)
>
> That is a definition. THe purpose of a definition is not to specify a
> truth value. Languages that permit definitions the use of the same LP
> on both sides of := is usually a syntax error.
>
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott
My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning" computable.
This required establishing a new foundation
for correct reasoning.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-26 10:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <FZEVQ.44901$5c64.42849@fx10.iad> |
| In reply to | #136579 |
On 11/26/25 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/26/2025 4:17 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> olcott kirjoitti 14.11.2025 klo 16.49:
>>> On 11/14/2025 3:09 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-11-14 00:56:17 +0000, Tristan Wibberley said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 13/11/2025 09:05, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-11-12 14:45:34 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ... formalized in Minimal
>>>>>>> Type Theory as LP := ~True(LP).
>>>>>>> (where A := B means A is defined as B).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://philpapers.org/rec/OLCREO
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can someone review my actual reasoning
>>>>>>> elaborated in the paper?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you want to use the term "formal language" you must prove that
>>>>>> there is a Turing machine that can determine whether a string is a
>>>>>> valid sentence of your language. If no such Turing machine exists
>>>>>> you have no justifiction for the use of the word "formal".
>>>>>
>>>>> It looks, at a glance, like his system has no theorems with loops in
>>>>> them. The system is "safe" and very small.
>>>>
>>>> It does not look small. It seems to have very many postulates, perhaps
>>>> infinitely many. The intent is that it be complete so it probably is
>>>> only paraconsistent or perhaps even inconsistent.
>>>>
>>>
>>> My system rejects expressions of language that cannot
>>> possibly be resolved to a truth value because they have
>>> pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004)
>>>
>>> G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝)
>>
>> That can be evaluated ir sufficient defitions are given. In particular,
>
> Directed Graph of evaluation sequence
> 00 ↔ 01 02
> 01 G
> 02 ¬ 03
> 03 Prov 04
> 04 Gödel_Number_of 01 // cycle
>
> ?- G = not(provable(F, G)).
> G = not(provable(F, G)).
> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(G, not(provable(F, G))).
> false.
>
> You do not understand the deep meaning of
> unify_with_occurs_check()
No, the problem is that your "language" is too primative to handle the
statement.
Note, G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) isn't Godel statement, just the MEANING of the
statement.
G is actually the statement that there exist no number that statifies
the specific Primative Recursive Relationship derived, and that PRR has
NO back references in it (every operation on a number, only refers to
smaller numbers)
The problem is your "logic" can't handle the details of the mathematics
of numbers, so can't actually handle the statement.
>
>> the value of Prov('G') must be determinable. The value of G must be
>> either true or false, so even if it is not given or determinable it is
>> possible to evaluate the expression for both values. If the result is
>> the same then that is the value of the expression, otherwise the given
>> information is insufficient.
>>
>>> LP := ~True(LP)
>>
>> That is a definition. THe purpose of a definition is not to specify a
>> truth value. Languages that permit definitions the use of the same LP
>> on both sides of := is usually a syntax error.
>>
>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-27 10:17 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <10g91e8$17cln$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136579 |
olcott kirjoitti 26.11.2025 klo 17.20: > On 11/26/2025 4:17 AM, Mikko wrote: >> olcott kirjoitti 14.11.2025 klo 16.49: >>> On 11/14/2025 3:09 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2025-11-14 00:56:17 +0000, Tristan Wibberley said: >>>> >>>>> On 13/11/2025 09:05, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 2025-11-12 14:45:34 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> ... formalized in Minimal >>>>>>> Type Theory as LP := ~True(LP). >>>>>>> (where A := B means A is defined as B). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://philpapers.org/rec/OLCREO >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Can someone review my actual reasoning >>>>>>> elaborated in the paper? >>>>>> >>>>>> If you want to use the term "formal language" you must prove that >>>>>> there is a Turing machine that can determine whether a string is a >>>>>> valid sentence of your language. If no such Turing machine exists >>>>>> you have no justifiction for the use of the word "formal". >>>>> >>>>> It looks, at a glance, like his system has no theorems with loops in >>>>> them. The system is "safe" and very small. >>>> >>>> It does not look small. It seems to have very many postulates, perhaps >>>> infinitely many. The intent is that it be complete so it probably is >>>> only paraconsistent or perhaps even inconsistent. >>>> >>> >>> My system rejects expressions of language that cannot >>> possibly be resolved to a truth value because they have >>> pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) >>> >>> G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) >> >> That can be evaluated ir sufficient defitions are given. In particular, > > Directed Graph of evaluation sequence > 00 ↔ 01 02 > 01 G > 02 ¬ 03 > 03 Prov 04 > 04 Gödel_Number_of 01 // cycle > > ?- G = not(provable(F, G)). > G = not(provable(F, G)). > ?- unify_with_occurs_check(G, not(provable(F, G))). > false. > > You do not understand the deep meaning of > unify_with_occurs_check() That you need to lie about other people indicates that you are not sure whether what you say is true but you want anyway that others believe it. Of course I do understand the meaning of unify_with_occurs_check/2. It unifies two data structures if they can be unified without creating a loop that is not already in at least one of the structures to be unified, or fails if a new loop would be created or the structures cannot be unified. For example, unify_with_occurs_check(G, provable(G)). fails because it would produce a loop but H = provable(H), unify_with_occurs_check(X, H). succeeds because the loop in X is already in H. All of which is of course irrelevant to anything in my previous message. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 22 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 20 21 [22] 23 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web