Groups > sci.math > #641308 > unrolled thread

Final Resolution of the Liar Paradox

Started by	olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
First post	2025-11-27 08:36 -0600
Last post	2025-11-30 11:16 +0200
Articles	20 on this page of 27 — 7 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.math

  Final Resolution of the Liar Paradox olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 08:36 -0600
    Re: Final Resolution of the Liar Paradox olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 10:28 -0600
      Re: Final Resolution of the Liar Paradox Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-28 10:06 +0200
        Re: Final Resolution of the Liar Paradox polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 08:03 -0600
          Re: Final Resolution of the Liar Paradox Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-29 10:48 +0200
            Re: Final Resolution of the Liar Paradox olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 10:04 -0600
              Re: Final Resolution of the Liar Paradox Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-30 11:10 +0200
        Re: Final Resolution of the Liar Paradox dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-28 09:29 -0800
          Re: Final Resolution of the Liar Paradox olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 12:10 -0600
          Re: Final Resolution of the Liar Paradox "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 16:42 -0800
            Re: Final Resolution of the Liar Paradox FromTheRafters <FTR@nomail.afraid.org> - 2025-11-28 19:49 -0500
              Re: Final Resolution of the Liar Paradox "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 16:57 -0800
              Re: Final Resolution of the Liar Paradox "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 17:06 -0800
          Re: Final Resolution of the Liar Paradox Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-29 10:55 +0200
            Re: Final Resolution of the Liar Paradox olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 10:10 -0600
              Re: Final Resolution of the Liar Paradox dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-29 11:00 -0800
                Re: Final Resolution of the Liar Paradox olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 13:16 -0600
              Re: Final Resolution of the Liar Paradox Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-30 11:12 +0200
            on "Nothing is final" dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-29 10:53 -0800
              Re: on "Nothing is final" olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 13:00 -0600
    Re: Final Resolution of the Liar Paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-27 18:07 +0000
      Re: Final Resolution of the Liar Paradox "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 16:43 -0800
        Re: Final Resolution of the Liar Paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-29 01:20 +0000
          Re: Final Resolution of the Liar Paradox "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 17:28 -0800
        Re: Final Resolution of the Liar Paradox Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-29 11:06 +0200
          Re: Final Resolution of the Liar Paradox "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 14:37 -0800
            Re: Final Resolution of the Liar Paradox Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-30 11:16 +0200

Page 1 of 2 [1] 2 Next page →

#641308 — Final Resolution of the Liar Paradox

From	olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Date	2025-11-27 08:36 -0600
Subject	Final Resolution of the Liar Paradox
Message-ID	<10g9nlr$1fv38$1@dont-email.me>

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!

The simple English shows that the Liar Paradox never
gets to the point.

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
infinite recursion. This is more clearly seen below.

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 above seems to prove that the Liar Paradox
has merely been semantically unsound all these years.

-- 
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] | [next] | [standalone]

#641319

From	olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Date	2025-11-27 10:28 -0600
Message-ID	<10g9u87$1iors$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#641308

On 11/27/2025 8:36 AM, olcott wrote:
> 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!
> 
> The simple English shows that the Liar Paradox never
> gets to the point.
> 
> 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
> infinite recursion. This is more clearly seen below.
> 
> 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 above seems to prove that the Liar Paradox
> has merely been semantically unsound all these years.
> 

*Final Resolution of the Liar Paradox*
https://philpapers.org/archive/OLCFRO.pdf

-- 
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]

#641326

From	Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Date	2025-11-28 10:06 +0200
Message-ID	<10gbl74$26had$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#641319

olcott kirjoitti 27.11.2025 klo 18.28:
> On 11/27/2025 8:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>> 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!
>>
>> The simple English shows that the Liar Paradox never
>> gets to the point.
>>
>> 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
>> infinite recursion. This is more clearly seen below.
>>
>> 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 above seems to prove that the Liar Paradox
>> has merely been semantically unsound all these years.
>>
> 
> *Final Resolution of the Liar Paradox*
> https://philpapers.org/archive/OLCFRO.pdf

Nothing is final in philosophy.

For the most common forms of formal logic this paradox is not possible
because there is no syntax for definitions.

-- 
Mikko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#641341

From	polcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Date	2025-11-28 08:03 -0600
Message-ID	<10gca48$of6n$2@solani.org>
In reply to	#641326

On 11/28/2025 2:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
> olcott kirjoitti 27.11.2025 klo 18.28:
>> On 11/27/2025 8:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> 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!
>>>
>>> The simple English shows that the Liar Paradox never
>>> gets to the point.
>>>
>>> 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
>>> infinite recursion. This is more clearly seen below.
>>>
>>> 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 above seems to prove that the Liar Paradox
>>> has merely been semantically unsound all these years.
>>>
>>
>> *Final Resolution of the Liar Paradox*
>> https://philpapers.org/archive/OLCFRO.pdf
> 
> Nothing is final in philosophy.
> 
> For the most common forms of formal logic this paradox is not possible
> because there is no syntax for definitions.
> 

Lookup Olcott's Minimal Type Theory
I created Olcott's Minimal Type Theory
for the sole purpose of formalizing
Pathological-self-reference(Olcott 2004)

LP := ~True(LP)    // LP {is defined as} ~True(LP)
that expands to ~True(~True(~True(~True(~True(~True(...))))))

G := (F ⊬ G)  // G is defined as unprovable in F
...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which
asserts its own unprovability. 15 … (Gödel 1931:40-41)

Gödel, Kurt 1931.
On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia
Mathematica And Related Systems



-- 
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]

#641384

From	Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Date	2025-11-29 10:48 +0200
Message-ID	<10gec04$36u3i$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#641341

polcott kirjoitti 28.11.2025 klo 16.03:
> On 11/28/2025 2:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> olcott kirjoitti 27.11.2025 klo 18.28:
>>> On 11/27/2025 8:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> 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!
>>>>
>>>> The simple English shows that the Liar Paradox never
>>>> gets to the point.
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>> infinite recursion. This is more clearly seen below.
>>>>
>>>> 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 above seems to prove that the Liar Paradox
>>>> has merely been semantically unsound all these years.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *Final Resolution of the Liar Paradox*
>>> https://philpapers.org/archive/OLCFRO.pdf
>>
>> Nothing is final in philosophy.
>>
>> For the most common forms of formal logic this paradox is not possible
>> because there is no syntax for definitions.
> 
> Lookup Olcott's Minimal Type Theory
> I created Olcott's Minimal Type Theory
> for the sole purpose of formalizing
> Pathological-self-reference(Olcott 2004)
> 
> LP := ~True(LP)    // LP {is defined as} ~True(LP)
> that expands to ~True(~True(~True(~True(~True(~True(...))))))
> 
> G := (F ⊬ G)  // G is defined as unprovable in F
> ...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which
> asserts its own unprovability. 15 … (Gödel 1931:40-41)
> 
> Gödel, Kurt 1931.
> On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia
> Mathematica And Related Systems

Nice to see that you don't disagree.

-- 
Mikko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#641404

From	olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Date	2025-11-29 10:04 -0600
Message-ID	<10gf5hu$3gi3q$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#641384

On 11/29/2025 2:48 AM, Mikko wrote:
> polcott kirjoitti 28.11.2025 klo 16.03:
>> On 11/28/2025 2:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> olcott kirjoitti 27.11.2025 klo 18.28:
>>>> On 11/27/2025 8:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> 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!
>>>>>
>>>>> The simple English shows that the Liar Paradox never
>>>>> gets to the point.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>> infinite recursion. This is more clearly seen below.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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 above seems to prove that the Liar Paradox
>>>>> has merely been semantically unsound all these years.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Final Resolution of the Liar Paradox*
>>>> https://philpapers.org/archive/OLCFRO.pdf
>>>
>>> Nothing is final in philosophy.
>>>
>>> For the most common forms of formal logic this paradox is not possible
>>> because there is no syntax for definitions.
>>
>> Lookup Olcott's Minimal Type Theory
>> I created Olcott's Minimal Type Theory
>> for the sole purpose of formalizing
>> Pathological-self-reference(Olcott 2004)
>>
>> LP := ~True(LP)    // LP {is defined as} ~True(LP)
>> that expands to ~True(~True(~True(~True(~True(~True(...))))))
>>
>> G := (F ⊬ G)  // G is defined as unprovable in F
>> ...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which
>> asserts its own unprovability. 15 … (Gödel 1931:40-41)
>>
>> Gödel, Kurt 1931.
>> On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia
>> Mathematica And Related Systems
> 
> Nice to see that you don't disagree.
> 

This seems to be a nonsense phrase that you
use whenever you cannot understand what I have said.

-- 
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]

#641471

From	Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Date	2025-11-30 11:10 +0200
Message-ID	<10gh1m8$6rtn$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#641404

olcott kirjoitti 29.11.2025 klo 18.04:
> On 11/29/2025 2:48 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> polcott kirjoitti 28.11.2025 klo 16.03:
>>> On 11/28/2025 2:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> olcott kirjoitti 27.11.2025 klo 18.28:
>>>>> On 11/27/2025 8:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> 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!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The simple English shows that the Liar Paradox never
>>>>>> gets to the point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> infinite recursion. This is more clearly seen below.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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 above seems to prove that the Liar Paradox
>>>>>> has merely been semantically unsound all these years.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Final Resolution of the Liar Paradox*
>>>>> https://philpapers.org/archive/OLCFRO.pdf
>>>>
>>>> Nothing is final in philosophy.
>>>>
>>>> For the most common forms of formal logic this paradox is not possible
>>>> because there is no syntax for definitions.
>>>
>>> Lookup Olcott's Minimal Type Theory
>>> I created Olcott's Minimal Type Theory
>>> for the sole purpose of formalizing
>>> Pathological-self-reference(Olcott 2004)
>>>
>>> LP := ~True(LP)    // LP {is defined as} ~True(LP)
>>> that expands to ~True(~True(~True(~True(~True(~True(...))))))
>>>
>>> G := (F ⊬ G)  // G is defined as unprovable in F
>>> ...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which
>>> asserts its own unprovability. 15 … (Gödel 1931:40-41)
>>>
>>> Gödel, Kurt 1931.
>>> On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia
>>> Mathematica And Related Systems
>>
>> Nice to see that you don't disagree.
> 
> This seems to be a nonsense phrase that you
> use whenever you cannot understand what I have said.

It is not exactly nonsense but it can be interpreted to mean that I
don't care to comment what you said other than to note that you did
not care what I said.


-- 
Mikko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#641354

From	dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid>
Date	2025-11-28 09:29 -0800
Message-ID	<10gcm5u$2k00p$3@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#641326

On 11/28/25 12:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
> olcott kirjoitti 27.11.2025 klo 18.28:
>> On 11/27/2025 8:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> 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!
>>>
>>> The simple English shows that the Liar Paradox never
>>> gets to the point.
>>>
>>> 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
>>> infinite recursion. This is more clearly seen below.
>>>
>>> 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 above seems to prove that the Liar Paradox
>>> has merely been semantically unsound all these years.
>>>
>>
>> *Final Resolution of the Liar Paradox*
>> https://philpapers.org/archive/OLCFRO.pdf
> 
> Nothing is final in philosophy.

self-contradictory statement bro

clearly at least something much be final, because if nothing was final 
then that premise would become final and contradict itself

> 
> For the most common forms of formal logic this paradox is not possible
> because there is no syntax for definitions.
> 

-- 
hi, i'm nick! let's end war 🙃

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#641356

From	olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Date	2025-11-28 12:10 -0600
Message-ID	<10gcoih$2lavv$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#641354

On 11/28/2025 11:29 AM, dart200 wrote:
> On 11/28/25 12:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> olcott kirjoitti 27.11.2025 klo 18.28:
>>> On 11/27/2025 8:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> 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!
>>>>
>>>> The simple English shows that the Liar Paradox never
>>>> gets to the point.
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>> infinite recursion. This is more clearly seen below.
>>>>
>>>> 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 above seems to prove that the Liar Paradox
>>>> has merely been semantically unsound all these years.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *Final Resolution of the Liar Paradox*
>>> https://philpapers.org/archive/OLCFRO.pdf
>>
>> Nothing is final in philosophy.
> 
> self-contradictory statement bro
> 
> clearly at least something much be final, because if nothing was final 
> then that premise would become final and contradict itself
> 

He only seems to care about rebuttal at the expense of truth.

>>
>> For the most common forms of formal logic this paradox is not possible
>> because there is no syntax for definitions.
>>
> 


-- 
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]

#641370

From	"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>
Date	2025-11-28 16:42 -0800
Message-ID	<10gdfi1$2t12t$4@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#641354

On 11/28/2025 9:29 AM, dart200 wrote:
> On 11/28/25 12:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> olcott kirjoitti 27.11.2025 klo 18.28:
>>> On 11/27/2025 8:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> 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!
>>>>
>>>> The simple English shows that the Liar Paradox never
>>>> gets to the point.
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>> infinite recursion. This is more clearly seen below.
>>>>
>>>> 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 above seems to prove that the Liar Paradox
>>>> has merely been semantically unsound all these years.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *Final Resolution of the Liar Paradox*
>>> https://philpapers.org/archive/OLCFRO.pdf
>>
>> Nothing is final in philosophy.
> 
> self-contradictory statement bro
> 
> clearly at least something much be final, because if nothing was final 
> then that premise would become final and contradict itself

How many digits does PI have?


> 
>>
>> For the most common forms of formal logic this paradox is not possible
>> because there is no syntax for definitions.
>>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#641372

From	FromTheRafters <FTR@nomail.afraid.org>
Date	2025-11-28 19:49 -0500
Message-ID	<10gdfuh$2ubft$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#641370

Chris M. Thomasson has brought this to us :
> On 11/28/2025 9:29 AM, dart200 wrote:
>> On 11/28/25 12:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> olcott kirjoitti 27.11.2025 klo 18.28:
>>>> On 11/27/2025 8:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> 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!
>>>>>
>>>>> The simple English shows that the Liar Paradox never
>>>>> gets to the point.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>> infinite recursion. This is more clearly seen below.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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 above seems to prove that the Liar Paradox
>>>>> has merely been semantically unsound all these years.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Final Resolution of the Liar Paradox*
>>>> https://philpapers.org/archive/OLCFRO.pdf
>>>
>>> Nothing is final in philosophy.
>> 
>> self-contradictory statement bro
>> 
>> clearly at least something much be final, because if nothing was final then 
>> that premise would become final and contradict itself
>
> How many digits does PI have?

10 in decimal.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#641373

From	"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>
Date	2025-11-28 16:57 -0800
Message-ID	<10gdgdt$2t101$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#641372

On 11/28/2025 4:49 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
> Chris M. Thomasson has brought this to us :
>> On 11/28/2025 9:29 AM, dart200 wrote:
>>> On 11/28/25 12:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> olcott kirjoitti 27.11.2025 klo 18.28:
>>>>> On 11/27/2025 8:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> 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!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The simple English shows that the Liar Paradox never
>>>>>> gets to the point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> infinite recursion. This is more clearly seen below.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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 above seems to prove that the Liar Paradox
>>>>>> has merely been semantically unsound all these years.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Final Resolution of the Liar Paradox*
>>>>> https://philpapers.org/archive/OLCFRO.pdf
>>>>
>>>> Nothing is final in philosophy.
>>>
>>> self-contradictory statement bro
>>>
>>> clearly at least something much be final, because if nothing was 
>>> final then that premise would become final and contradict itself
>>
>> How many digits does PI have?
> 
> 10 in decimal.

:^D

5 in 5-ary, quinary. ;^)

lol.

31415926

Well, I only see eight symbols therefore PI has 8 symbols. I only see 
the following unique symbols:

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9

Therefore PI must be 7-ary.

PO is strange because he thinks he can solve the halting problem.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#641374

From	"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>
Date	2025-11-28 17:06 -0800
Message-ID	<10gdgu4$2t12t$6@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#641372

On 11/28/2025 4:49 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
> Chris M. Thomasson has brought this to us :
>> On 11/28/2025 9:29 AM, dart200 wrote:
>>> On 11/28/25 12:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> olcott kirjoitti 27.11.2025 klo 18.28:
>>>>> On 11/27/2025 8:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> 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!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The simple English shows that the Liar Paradox never
>>>>>> gets to the point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> infinite recursion. This is more clearly seen below.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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 above seems to prove that the Liar Paradox
>>>>>> has merely been semantically unsound all these years.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Final Resolution of the Liar Paradox*
>>>>> https://philpapers.org/archive/OLCFRO.pdf
>>>>
>>>> Nothing is final in philosophy.
>>>
>>> self-contradictory statement bro
>>>
>>> clearly at least something much be final, because if nothing was 
>>> final then that premise would become final and contradict itself
>>
>> How many digits does PI have?
> 
> 10 in decimal.

It's funny. PO with his "artificial abort" would say PI went on for too 
many symbols, no matter what radix. But how would he know if it was 
reading from a buffer that had more symbols in it. It's finite, but PO 
cuts it off and says its non-halting even though he cut himself off at 
the knees before the buffer was fully read. The black box program is 
simply outputting symbols of pi. PO says that's too many, says 
non-halting. The program under consideration has many more symbols to 
process, but it got aborted...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#641385

From	Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Date	2025-11-29 10:55 +0200
Message-ID	<10gecek$375jc$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#641354

dart200 kirjoitti 28.11.2025 klo 19.29:
> On 11/28/25 12:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> olcott kirjoitti 27.11.2025 klo 18.28:
>>> On 11/27/2025 8:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> 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!
>>>>
>>>> The simple English shows that the Liar Paradox never
>>>> gets to the point.
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>> infinite recursion. This is more clearly seen below.
>>>>
>>>> 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 above seems to prove that the Liar Paradox
>>>> has merely been semantically unsound all these years.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *Final Resolution of the Liar Paradox*
>>> https://philpapers.org/archive/OLCFRO.pdf
>>
>> Nothing is final in philosophy.
> 
> self-contradictory statement bro
> 
> clearly at least something much be final, because if nothing was final 
> then that premise would become final and contradict itself

Nothing is final in philosophy. It includes the satement "nothing
is final in philosophy". Some philosphers may disagree with it or
are at least not convinced so it is not final in philosophy and
probably will never be. I don't think sufficiently many have said
enough about it to even say that "Nothing is final in philosophy"
is in philosophy.

-- 
Mikko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#641405

From	olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Date	2025-11-29 10:10 -0600
Message-ID	<10gf5th$3gpjj$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#641385

On 11/29/2025 2:55 AM, Mikko wrote:
> dart200 kirjoitti 28.11.2025 klo 19.29:
>> On 11/28/25 12:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> olcott kirjoitti 27.11.2025 klo 18.28:
>>>> On 11/27/2025 8:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> 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!
>>>>>
>>>>> The simple English shows that the Liar Paradox never
>>>>> gets to the point.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>> infinite recursion. This is more clearly seen below.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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 above seems to prove that the Liar Paradox
>>>>> has merely been semantically unsound all these years.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Final Resolution of the Liar Paradox*
>>>> https://philpapers.org/archive/OLCFRO.pdf
>>>
>>> Nothing is final in philosophy.
>>
>> self-contradictory statement bro
>>
>> clearly at least something much be final, because if nothing was final 
>> then that premise would become final and contradict itself
> 
> Nothing is final in philosophy. 

Semantic tautologies are always final even
if no one understands them.

Any expression of language that is proven true
entirely on the basis of its meaning expressed
in language is a semantic tautology.

> It includes the satement "nothing
> is final in philosophy". Some philosphers may disagree with it or
> are at least not convinced so it is not final in philosophy and
> probably will never be. I don't think sufficiently many have said
> enough about it to even say that "Nothing is final in philosophy"
> is in philosophy.
> 


-- 
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]

#641419

From	dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid>
Date	2025-11-29 11:00 -0800
Message-ID	<10gfft1$3jqkd$5@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#641405

On 11/29/25 8:10 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/29/2025 2:55 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> dart200 kirjoitti 28.11.2025 klo 19.29:
>>> On 11/28/25 12:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> olcott kirjoitti 27.11.2025 klo 18.28:
>>>>> On 11/27/2025 8:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> 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!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The simple English shows that the Liar Paradox never
>>>>>> gets to the point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> infinite recursion. This is more clearly seen below.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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 above seems to prove that the Liar Paradox
>>>>>> has merely been semantically unsound all these years.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Final Resolution of the Liar Paradox*
>>>>> https://philpapers.org/archive/OLCFRO.pdf
>>>>
>>>> Nothing is final in philosophy.
>>>
>>> self-contradictory statement bro
>>>
>>> clearly at least something much be final, because if nothing was 
>>> final then that premise would become final and contradict itself
>>
>> Nothing is final in philosophy. 
> 
> Semantic tautologies are always final even
> if no one understands them.
> 
> Any expression of language that is proven true
> entirely on the basis of its meaning expressed
> in language is a semantic tautology.

not bad polcott, i agree 💯 i think...

mikko is refuted on that point

> 
>> It includes the satement "nothing
>> is final in philosophy". Some philosphers may disagree with it or
>> are at least not convinced so it is not final in philosophy and
>> probably will never be. I don't think sufficiently many have said
>> enough about it to even say that "Nothing is final in philosophy"
>> is in philosophy.
>>
> 
> 


-- 
a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve
basic semantic proofs like halting analysis

please excuse my pseudo-pyscript,

~ nick

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#641420

From	olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Date	2025-11-29 13:16 -0600
Message-ID	<10gfgq9$3l70h$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#641419

On 11/29/2025 1:00 PM, dart200 wrote:
> On 11/29/25 8:10 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 11/29/2025 2:55 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> dart200 kirjoitti 28.11.2025 klo 19.29:
>>>> On 11/28/25 12:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 27.11.2025 klo 18.28:
>>>>>> On 11/27/2025 8:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> 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!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The simple English shows that the Liar Paradox never
>>>>>>> gets to the point.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> infinite recursion. This is more clearly seen below.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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 above seems to prove that the Liar Paradox
>>>>>>> has merely been semantically unsound all these years.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Final Resolution of the Liar Paradox*
>>>>>> https://philpapers.org/archive/OLCFRO.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing is final in philosophy.
>>>>
>>>> self-contradictory statement bro
>>>>
>>>> clearly at least something much be final, because if nothing was 
>>>> final then that premise would become final and contradict itself
>>>
>>> Nothing is final in philosophy. 
>>
>> Semantic tautologies are always final even
>> if no one understands them.
>>
>> Any expression of language that is proven true
>> entirely on the basis of its meaning expressed
>> in language is a semantic tautology.
> 
> not bad polcott, i agree 💯 i think...
> 
> mikko is refuted on that point
> 

Great. I think that you are I are the only
one that care about these kind of truths.

Literally everyone else here only cares about
finding fault at the expense of truth. Mike
might be the only exception. Even he appears
to be much more focused on defending the status
quo than accurately assessing new ideas.

>>
>>> It includes the satement "nothing
>>> is final in philosophy". Some philosphers may disagree with it or
>>> are at least not convinced so it is not final in philosophy and
>>> probably will never be. I don't think sufficiently many have said
>>> enough about it to even say that "Nothing is final in philosophy"
>>> is in philosophy.
>>>
>>
>>
> 
> 


-- 
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]

#641472

From	Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Date	2025-11-30 11:12 +0200
Message-ID	<10gh1qe$6rtn$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#641405

olcott kirjoitti 29.11.2025 klo 18.10:
> On 11/29/2025 2:55 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> dart200 kirjoitti 28.11.2025 klo 19.29:
>>> On 11/28/25 12:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> olcott kirjoitti 27.11.2025 klo 18.28:
>>>>> On 11/27/2025 8:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> 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!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The simple English shows that the Liar Paradox never
>>>>>> gets to the point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> infinite recursion. This is more clearly seen below.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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 above seems to prove that the Liar Paradox
>>>>>> has merely been semantically unsound all these years.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Final Resolution of the Liar Paradox*
>>>>> https://philpapers.org/archive/OLCFRO.pdf
>>>>
>>>> Nothing is final in philosophy.
>>>
>>> self-contradictory statement bro
>>>
>>> clearly at least something much be final, because if nothing was 
>>> final then that premise would become final and contradict itself
>>
>> Nothing is final in philosophy. 
> 
> Semantic tautologies are always final even
> if no one understands them.

There always is or will be a philosopher who wants to add some
further consideration.

-- 
Mikko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#641417 — on "Nothing is final"

From	dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid>
Date	2025-11-29 10:53 -0800
Subject	on "Nothing is final"
Message-ID	<10gffeq$3jqkd$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#641385

On 11/29/25 12:55 AM, Mikko wrote:
> dart200 kirjoitti 28.11.2025 klo 19.29:
>> On 11/28/25 12:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> olcott kirjoitti 27.11.2025 klo 18.28:
>>>> On 11/27/2025 8:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> 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!
>>>>>
>>>>> The simple English shows that the Liar Paradox never
>>>>> gets to the point.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>> infinite recursion. This is more clearly seen below.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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 above seems to prove that the Liar Paradox
>>>>> has merely been semantically unsound all these years.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Final Resolution of the Liar Paradox*
>>>> https://philpapers.org/archive/OLCFRO.pdf
>>>
>>> Nothing is final in philosophy.
>>
>> self-contradictory statement bro
>>
>> clearly at least something much be final, because if nothing was final 
>> then that premise would become final and contradict itself
> 
> Nothing is final in philosophy. It includes the satement "nothing

it's just not a coherent belief that could be truth, as truth must have 
an ability to be final, even if we haven't yet figured out what that 
finality is

> is final in philosophy". Some philosphers may disagree with it or
> are at least not convinced so it is not final in philosophy and
> probably will never be. I don't think sufficiently many have said
> enough about it to even say that "Nothing is final in philosophy"
> is in philosophy.

-- 
a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve
basic semantic proofs like halting analysis

please excuse my pseudo-pyscript,

~ nick

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#641418 — Re: on "Nothing is final"

From	olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Date	2025-11-29 13:00 -0600
Subject	Re: on "Nothing is final"
Message-ID	<10gffrj$3kq67$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#641417

On 11/29/2025 12:53 PM, dart200 wrote:
> On 11/29/25 12:55 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> dart200 kirjoitti 28.11.2025 klo 19.29:
>>> On 11/28/25 12:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> olcott kirjoitti 27.11.2025 klo 18.28:
>>>>> On 11/27/2025 8:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> 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!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The simple English shows that the Liar Paradox never
>>>>>> gets to the point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> infinite recursion. This is more clearly seen below.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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 above seems to prove that the Liar Paradox
>>>>>> has merely been semantically unsound all these years.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Final Resolution of the Liar Paradox*
>>>>> https://philpapers.org/archive/OLCFRO.pdf
>>>>
>>>> Nothing is final in philosophy.
>>>
>>> self-contradictory statement bro
>>>
>>> clearly at least something much be final, because if nothing was 
>>> final then that premise would become final and contradict itself
>>
>> Nothing is final in philosophy. It includes the satement "nothing
> 
> it's just not a coherent belief that could be truth, as truth must have 
> an ability to be final, even if we haven't yet figured out what that 
> finality is
> 
>> is final in philosophy". Some philosphers may disagree with it or
>> are at least not convinced so it is not final in philosophy and
>> probably will never be. I don't think sufficiently many have said
>> enough about it to even say that "Nothing is final in philosophy"
>> is in philosophy.
> 

-- 
a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve
basic semantic proofs like halting analysis

please excuse my pseudo-pyscript,

~ nick

*You should make your signature not auto erase*

The problem with all "proofs" is that they
split up the direct connection to semantics
after the syllogism. This makes all modern
"proofs" no more than symbol wigglers.

-- 
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]

Page 1 of 2 [1] 2 Next page →

csiph-web

Final Resolution of the Liar Paradox

Contents

#641308 — Final Resolution of the Liar Paradox

#641319

#641326

#641341

#641384

#641404

#641471

#641354

#641356

#641370

#641372

#641373

#641374

#641385

#641405

#641419

#641420

#641472

#641417 — on "Nothing is final"

#641418 — Re: on "Nothing is final"