Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| Subject | Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory, comp.lang.prolog, comp.ai.philosophy |
| References | (19 earlier) <t4q5uo$veh$1@dont-email.me> <vU8cK.2577$ATo1.2258@fx33.iad> <t4vcsa$g9o$1@dont-email.me> <4UGcK.11523$IQK.4635@fx02.iad> <t4veo9$2d5$1@dont-email.me> |
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
| Message-ID | <XJOcK.720276$7F2.122603@fx12.iad> (permalink) |
| Organization | Forte - www.forteinc.com |
| Date | 2022-05-05 07:41 -0400 |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
On 5/4/22 11:02 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/4/2022 9:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 5/4/22 10:30 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/3/2022 7:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 5/2/22 11:01 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 5/2/2022 9:21 PM, Ben wrote: >>>>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 5/2/2022 6:43 PM, Ben wrote: >>>>>>>> Aleksy Grabowski <hurufu@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks for confirmation, that's what exactly what I was trying >>>>>>>>> to tell >>>>>>>>> to topic poster in one of my previous posts. Prolog in it's >>>>>>>>> bare form >>>>>>>>> is a bad theorem solver. It wasn't designed a such. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If you want to deal with such problems maybe it is better to >>>>>>>>> use Coq >>>>>>>>> theorem prover, I've never used it by myself, but it looks like >>>>>>>>> one of >>>>>>>>> the best proving assistants out there. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And indeed there is a fully formalised proof of GIT in Coq >>>>>>>> (though I >>>>>>>> think it's the slightly tighter Gödel-Rosser version). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is true that G is not provable. >>>>>> >>>>>> G is provable. Proofs abound. I was pointing out one in a proper >>>>>> proof >>>>>> assistant, Coq. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It is OK that you are not a math guy. >>>>> If you were a math guy you would understand that if G is provable >>>>> then that makes Gödel totally wrong. G is not Gödel's theorem, it >>>>> is a key element of his theorem. >>>>> >>>>> Incomplete T means that there exists a φ such that φ is not >>>>> provable or refutable in formal system T. >>>>> >>>>> Incomplete(T) ↔ ∃φ ((T ⊬ φ) ∧ (T ⊬ ¬φ)). >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> No, G IS provable, just not in the system F that G is described in, >>>> thus F is Incomplete by your definition above. >>>> >>>> Part of the key of the Godel proof is that while G sort of refers to >>>> itself, it does it in a way that F can't handle, so in F, G doesn't >>>> refer to itself but just "some statement", but in a 'more advanced' >>>> version of F, say F', we can see that relationship, and show that G >>>> must be true, proving it in F', but not in F, thus F is incomplete. >>>> >>> >>> Tarski's hierarchy of languages. >>> >>> It only works at a higher level language because the expression of >>> language at the next level is not self-contradictory. >>> >>> All epistemological antinomies are self-contradictory making them >>> semantically invalid. >>> >>> In his undefinability proof: (only two pages long) >>> https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf >>> >>> He defines these two levels as "the theory" and the next higher level >>> is called the "the metatheory". (see link). >> >> So we can prove G in the Metatheory, so it is True in the Theory too. > > In the same way that having a cat in your attic is proof that your car > is leaking oil. Nope, shows you don't understand the proof. Have you actually read it, or just the 'cliff notes' version. You know, the one with the actual > >>> since in this interpretation the sentence x, which contains no >>> specific term of the metatheory, is its o\vn correlate, the proof of >>> the sentence x given in the metatheory can automatically be carried >>> over into the theory itself: the sentence x which is undecidable in >>> the original theory becomes a decidable sentence in the enriched theory. >> >> But if G is true in the Theory, it is BY DEFINITION not provable in >> the Theory, so the space of the Theory is shown to have a True >> Statement which is not provable, thus the system of the Theory in >> Incomplete. > > It really has never made any sense how people can't understand that > self-contradictory expressions of language are necessary semantically > invalid. Back in 1974 mankind has had almost 2000 years to think about > the Liar Paradox and no one had a clue what the issue was. Except that G isn't self-contradictory. The actual G makes a statement of a mathematical problem and asks if it has a solution. That sort of statement is ALWAYS a Truth Bearer. I think your problem is you don't even uderstand that power and limits of semantics. > > Any unprovable expression of any formal or natural language is simply > untrue and nothing more. Nope. Truth does not mean Provable. An Unproven statement (or even unprovable statement) might still be True, it just can't be KNOWN. You confuse truth with knowledge, maybe because you have too much ego and think your knowledge defines what is. By your statement, the Bible is untrue, and you are thus a Liar for making statements based on it being true. We can't beleive the words of a Liar, so we shouldn't beleive you when you claim Truth implies Provable. Yes, you can build a logic system that defines that, in that system, a statement is only a Truth Bearer is it is provable or refutable, but such a system can not handle our mathematics (at least not and stay consistent). All you are doing is showing you don't understand how logic actually works. > >>> >>> >>>> We can then show that we can make a G' in F' with the same property, >>>> and thus show that there exists a system F'' where we can prove G'. >>>> >>>> This is why you simplification doesn't work. In F, we can't convert >>>> G into the statement G says that G is unprovable, but we can in F', >>>> thus the statement in F' is that G says that G in unprovable in F, >>>> and that statement is provable in F' >>>> >>> >>> Likewise for the liar Paradox. Apparently Tarski could prove the Liar >>> Paradox in his meta-theory. >>> >>>> You don't seem to be able to handle the concept of layers of logic >>>> systems. >>>> >>> >>> >> > >
Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-04-30 02:02 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-04-30 21:08 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-04-30 20:42 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-04-30 22:00 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-04-30 21:21 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-04-30 22:38 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-04-30 21:56 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-04-30 23:11 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-04-30 22:15 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-04-30 23:24 -0600
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 06:35 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 13:16 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-01 13:19 +0100
Re: Is this correct Prolog? polcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-01 07:51 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 13:19 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-05-01 11:22 -0600
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 07:18 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 06:50 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 13:26 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 06:28 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 08:01 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 07:09 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 08:16 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-04-30 20:47 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-04-30 19:53 -0600
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-04-30 23:49 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-04-30 23:34 -0600
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 06:40 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-01 07:35 -0600
Re: Is this correct Prolog? polcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-01 10:57 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-01 10:15 -0600
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 11:57 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-01 11:21 -0600
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 11:08 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-01 10:21 -0600
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 12:01 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-01 18:59 +0100
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 13:28 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-01 12:33 -0600
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 14:00 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 15:19 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-01 13:22 -0600
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 14:32 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-01 13:44 -0600
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 14:48 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-01 13:54 -0600
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 15:03 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-01 14:37 -0600
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 15:42 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-01 14:51 -0600
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 17:04 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 18:08 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-01 17:39 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 19:18 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-01 17:26 -0600
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-01 19:58 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 21:32 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-01 20:53 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 22:14 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-01 21:18 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-01 20:37 -0600
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 22:47 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-01 22:04 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-01 22:10 -0600
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-02 07:10 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 08:19 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-02 18:38 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-01 16:37 -0600
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-01 17:44 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-01 17:15 -0600
Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ André is proven to be a liar ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 18:33 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ André is proven to be a liar ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-01 16:39 -0700
Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ André is proven to be a liar ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 18:51 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ André is proven to be a liar ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-01 17:44 -0600
Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ André is proven to be a liar ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 18:53 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ André is proven to be a liar ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-01 18:13 -0600
Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ André is proven to be a liar ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-01 18:15 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ André is proven to be a liar ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 19:21 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ André is proven to be a liar ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-01 19:56 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-01 17:05 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 16:55 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 16:01 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-05-01 15:10 -0600
Re: Is this correct Prolog? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-01 15:11 -0600
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-01 16:49 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 18:07 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-01 17:35 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 05:58 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 07:12 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 06:45 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 08:07 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 07:15 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 13:49 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 06:00 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Aleksy Grabowski <hurufu@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 13:49 +0200
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 08:09 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Aleksy Grabowski <hurufu@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 15:35 +0200
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 08:55 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Aleksy Grabowski <hurufu@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 16:28 +0200
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 10:24 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Aleksy Grabowski <hurufu@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 17:44 +0200
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 11:04 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Aleksy Grabowski <hurufu@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 18:38 +0200
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 11:49 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-05-02 11:28 -0600
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-02 19:41 +0100
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 14:26 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 14:32 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-02 18:28 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Aleksy Grabowski <hurufu@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 00:41 +0200
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-03 00:43 +0100
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 19:57 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-03 03:21 +0100
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 22:01 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-03 08:05 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-04 21:30 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-04 22:46 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-04 22:02 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-05 07:41 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 12:57 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-05 12:06 -0600
Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 16:23 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-05 20:41 -0600
Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-05-05 23:09 -0600
Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 00:16 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-06 07:39 -0600
Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 12:17 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-06 11:31 -0600
Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 13:36 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-06 12:41 -0600
Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 14:03 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-06 13:11 -0600
Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 14:23 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-06 13:27 -0600
Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 14:39 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-06 13:46 -0600
Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 14:51 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-06 13:55 -0600
Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 15:35 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-05 22:24 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 21:37 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-06 07:43 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 15:29 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-03 15:59 +0100
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 10:44 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 14:49 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-05-04 00:13 +0200
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 17:23 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-05-04 00:40 +0200
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 17:47 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-03 09:18 -0600
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 11:08 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-03 10:52 -0600
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 12:05 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-03 11:17 -0600
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 12:33 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-03 12:23 -0600
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 13:59 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-03 14:03 -0600
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 22:24 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-03 21:54 -0600
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-04 07:27 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ André didn't lie after all ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 12:08 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ André didn't lie after all ] "B.H." <xlt.pjw@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 10:13 -0700
Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ André didn't lie after all ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 12:17 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ André didn't lie after all ] "B.H." <xlt.pjw@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 10:25 -0700
Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ André didn't lie after all ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 13:07 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-05-03 12:33 -0600
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 14:12 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-03 13:22 -0600
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 21:53 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-03 23:12 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 22:53 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-03 22:06 -0600
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-04 01:17 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-04 08:02 -0600
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-04 14:01 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-04 19:48 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-04 09:49 +0300
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-04 12:55 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-06 15:46 +0300
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 12:24 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-05-03 15:58 -0600
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 17:13 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Aleksy Grabowski <hurufu@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 10:46 +0200
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 10:06 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-03 22:20 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 19:11 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 19:35 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-02 20:47 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 06:06 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 07:26 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 06:54 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 08:11 -0400
Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 07:19 -0500
Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 14:00 -0400
csiph-web