Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.prolog, comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math |
| Subject | Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning |
| Date | 2025-12-14 21:22 -0600 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <10hnuss$1k71a$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (25 earlier) <t_I%Q.137324$y7S9.133619@fx15.iad> <10hnn1t$1i5ru$1@dont-email.me> <LLJ%Q.152592$8Vc1.57935@fx14.iad> <10hnqkj$1j13b$1@dont-email.me> <LmK%Q.152594$8Vc1.60183@fx14.iad> |
Cross-posted to 4 groups.
On 12/14/2025 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 12/14/25 9:09 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 12/14/2025 7:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 12/14/25 8:08 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 12/14/2025 6:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 12/14/25 7:46 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 12/14/2025 6:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 12/14/25 6:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 12/14/2025 4:05 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 13/12/2025 16:43, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> You just don't seem to understand: >>>>>>>>>> ?- G = not(provable(F, G)). >>>>>>>>>> G = not(provable(F, G)). >>>>>>>>>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(G, not(provable(F, G))). >>>>>>>>>> false. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The first statement creates a cyclic term, also called >>>>>>>>>> a rational tree. The second executes logically sound >>>>>>>>>> unification and thus fails. >>>>>>>>>> https://www.swi-prolog.org/pldoc/man? >>>>>>>>>> predicate=unify_with_occurs_check/2 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Saying the same as I said does not support a claim of non- >>>>>>>>> understanding. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It finally resolves the Liar Paradox >>>>>>>> as not a truth bearer or proposition. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Also every other decision problem instance >>>>>>>> with pathological self reference is isomorphic >>>>>>>> to the Liar Paradox. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But no one (except maybe you) didn't understand that the liar >>>>>>> paradox wasn't a truth bearer. >>>>>> >>>>>> It sure would seem that way wouldn't it? >>>>> >>>>> Yep >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It turns out that the Liar Paradox as not >>>>>> a truth bearer has never been accepted. >>>>> >>>>> Sure it has. It is you who just don't understand what people are >>>>> talking about. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It remains one of the great unresolved >>>>>> paradoxes of the world. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Nope. Care to docuement that claim? >>>>> >>>> >>>> I know exactly how ridiculous it sounds. >>>> None-the-less that the Liar Paradox has >>>> no accepted resolutions remains a verified fact. >>> >>> Can you show where someone didn't consider it a non-truth-bearing >>> statement? >>> >> >> There isn't an accepted final resolution to the Liar Paradox—it >> remains one of the most debated open problems in logic and philosophy! > > Nope, it is well resolved in formal logic, it just doesn't have a truth > value. > >> >> The Liar Paradox (sentences like "This sentence is false") has >> generated numerous proposed solutions, but none has achieved >> consensus. Here are the main approaches: >> >> 1. Tarski's Hierarchy of Languages >> Truth predicates apply only to sentences in lower-level languages. The >> liar sentence is blocked because it tries to apply a truth predicate >> to itself within the same language level. This "solves" it but many >> find it restrictive for natural language. > > And what is wrong with that rule? Note, this rule also resolves to there > is no truth predicate that can be defined in its own language. > > And none of the following seem to be defined in normal FORMAL LOGIC > systems. > None of them (above or below) has ever been accepted as the final resolution. >> >> 2. Paraconsistent Logic >> Accept that some contradictions can exist without everything becoming >> provable. The liar sentence can be both true and false without the >> logical system exploding. >> >> 3. Dialetheism (Graham Priest) >> Accept that the liar sentence is actually both true and false—a "true >> contradiction" or dialetheia. Challenges the law of non-contradiction. >> >> 4. Semantic Approaches >> Various theories argue the liar sentence is meaningless, lacks a truth >> value, or is semantically defective in some way. >> >> 5. Contextualism >> The truth value shifts depending on context or level of evaluation. >> >> 6. Revision Theories >> Truth values can be revised over time through iterative processes. >> Each approach has its defenders and critics, and philosophers continue >> to debate which (if any) is correct. The paradox remains >> philosophically live—it's not "solved" in the way mathematical >> problems get solved with accepted proofs. >> >> > -- Copyright 2025 Olcott<br><br> My 28 year goal has been to make <br> "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"<br> reliably computable.<br><br> This required establishing a new foundation<br>
Back to sci.logic | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
A new foundation for correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 18:53 -0600
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-25 11:40 +0200
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 08:21 -0600
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-26 13:37 +0200
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 09:39 -0600
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 12:44 -0500
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-27 09:56 +0200
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 09:31 -0600
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-28 10:58 +0200
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 09:51 -0600
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-28 11:04 -0500
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-29 12:17 +0200
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 11:54 -0600
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-30 11:22 +0200
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 09:54 -0600
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 12:49 -0500
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-26 19:43 +0000
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 14:04 -0600
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 21:42 +0000
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 21:49 +0000
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 15:54 -0600
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:33 -0800
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 15:50 -0600
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-02 11:26 +0000
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-02 07:22 -0600
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-27 10:00 +0200
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 09:43 -0600
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-28 11:01 +0200
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 09:54 -0600
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-28 17:32 +0000
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 12:40 -0600
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-28 18:51 +0000
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 13:21 -0600
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 08:43 -0600
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-03 19:59 -0600
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-28 16:49 -0500
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-03 20:07 -0600
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-03 20:30 -0600
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-29 12:20 +0200
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 11:57 -0600
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 11:27 -0800
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 13:33 -0600
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-11-30 10:33 -0800
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-30 11:58 +0200
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-04 02:32 +0000
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-03 20:39 -0600
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-04 08:06 -0600
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-05 11:38 +0200
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-05 11:43 -0600
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-06 11:30 +0200
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-06 06:50 -0600
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-07 13:02 +0200
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 13:49 -0600
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-08 11:13 +0200
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 13:09 -0600
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-10 12:04 +0200
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-10 08:10 -0600
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-12-10 15:01 +0000
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-10 10:14 -0600
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-10 18:10 +0000
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-10 14:01 -0600
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-11 10:42 +0200
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-11 08:17 -0600
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-11 23:28 +0000
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-11 17:49 -0600
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-11 19:52 -0500
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-12 10:50 +0200
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-12 08:19 -0600
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-12 09:24 -0500
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-14 19:03 +0000
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-13 12:19 +0200
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-13 08:43 -0600
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-13 13:36 -0500
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-14 12:05 +0200
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-14 17:14 -0600
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-14 19:13 -0500
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-14 18:46 -0600
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-14 19:53 -0500
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-14 19:08 -0600
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-14 20:46 -0500
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-14 20:05 -0600
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-14 21:23 -0500
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-14 20:09 -0600
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-14 21:27 -0500
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-14 21:22 -0600
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-15 07:33 -0500
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-15 11:04 +0200
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-15 08:03 -0600
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-16 11:44 +0200
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-16 11:48 +0200
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-05 10:49 +0000
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-05 11:05 -0600
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-06 08:24 +0000
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-06 06:08 -0600
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-06 13:03 +0000
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-06 07:14 -0600
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-08 11:18 +0200
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 13:12 -0600
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-10 12:10 +0200
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-10 10:29 -0600
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-11 10:40 +0200
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-11 08:15 -0600
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-12 10:46 +0200
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-12 08:16 -0600
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-12 09:22 -0500
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-13 12:42 +0200
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-13 09:37 -0600
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-12-13 15:42 +0000
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-05 11:00 -0600
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-12-05 22:17 +0000
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-05 16:24 -0600
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-12-05 22:45 +0000
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-12-05 15:16 -0800
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-05 17:45 -0600
Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-12 13:16 +0000
csiph-web