Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory, comp.lang.prolog, comp.ai.philosophy |
| Subject | Re: Is this correct Prolog? |
| Date | 2022-05-03 10:52 -0600 |
| Organization | Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism |
| Message-ID | <t4rmkb$jrt$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (15 earlier) <t4pmmd$4f6$3@dont-email.me> <87a6bzfqkz.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <t4pulq$bci$1@dont-email.me> <t4rh4c$t51$1@dont-email.me> <t4rk2m$rei$1@dont-email.me> |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
On 2022-05-03 10:08, olcott wrote: > On 5/3/2022 10:18 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >> On 2022-05-02 18:57, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/2/2022 6:43 PM, Ben wrote: >>>> Aleksy Grabowski <hurufu@gmail.com> writes: >>>> >>>>>> IF you are defining that your logic system is limited to what >>>>>> Prolog can "Prove", that is fine. Just realize that you have just >>>>>> defined that your >>>>>> logic system can't handle a lot of the real problems in the world, >>>>>> and in particular, it is very limited in the mathematics it can >>>>>> handle. >>>>>> I am pretty sure that Prolog is NOT up to handling the logic >>>>>> needed to >>>>>> handle the mathematics needed to express Godel's G, or the Halting >>>>>> Problem. >>>>>> Thus, your "Proof" that these Theorems are "Wrong" is incorrect, you >>>>>> have only proven that your limited logic system can't reach them >>>>>> in expressibility. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for confirmation, that's what exactly what I was trying to tell >>>>> to topic poster in one of my previous posts. Prolog in it's bare form >>>>> is a bad theorem solver. It wasn't designed a such. >>>>> >>>>> If you want to deal with such problems maybe it is better to use Coq >>>>> theorem prover, I've never used it by myself, but it looks like one of >>>>> the best proving assistants out there. >>>> >>>> And indeed there is a fully formalised proof of GIT in Coq (though I >>>> think it's the slightly tighter Gödel-Rosser version). >>>> >>> >>> It is true that G is not provable. G is not provable because it is >>> semantically incorrect in the exactly same way that the Liar Paradox >>> is semantically incorrect. >>> >>> Gödel says: >>> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar >>> undecidability proof >>> >>> André denied this six times yesterday >>> The Liar Paradox is an epistemological antinomy, thus can likewise be >>> used for a similar undecidability proof. >> >> No. The Liar can be used to construct an *identical* proof. > > Really? Of course really. His original proof drew on The Liar for inspiration. So a proof which draws on The Liar would be the same proof. He is saying that he could have used ANY antinomy. IOW, he could have chosen a *different* antinomy from The Liar, call it Antinomy X, and constructed a *similar* proof around that. It would not be the same proof, but it would involve constructing some sentence G-Prime which held the same relation to Antinomy X as G hold to The Liar. But there would not be an equivalence between G-Prime and X anymore than there is an equivalence between G and The Liar. This is the point I keep trying to drive home. There is NO EQUIVALENCE between G and the The Liar. Only a close relationship. >> Other antinomies could be used for similar proofs. He's already >> talking about The Liar. >> >>> Which means that the Liar Paradox is sufficiently equivalent to >>> Gödel's G. Which means if the basic mechanism of epistemological >>> antinomy is shown to be semantically incorrect then Gödel's G is >>> shown to be semantically incorrect. >> >> You have some serious reading comprehension problems. I never denied >> the things Gödel wrote. I denied your conclusion because it does not >> follow. >> >> Gödel starts by claiming there is a close relationship (*not* >> equivalence) between one particular antinomy, The Liar, and his G. >> >> He then states that similar proofs could be constructed using any >> antinomy. >> >> That entails that other antinomies could be used to construct similar >> proofs involving a similar close relation (again, *not* equivalence). >> > > That you persisted (six times) on claiming that Gödel's statement about > the Liar Paradox overrode and superseded his statement about the entire > category that the Liar Paradox belongs to was despicably deceitful, Except I made no such claim. Not even once. You persisted (six times) in misreading my claim. > unless you believe that "close relationship" is stronger than "similar > undecidability proof". In that case you never lied about this. I really > only want an honest dialogue so I am happy to admit my mistakes. > >> Gödel never claims *any* antinomy is equivalent to his G. Merely that >> a close relationship holds. >> > > I take "similar undecidability proof" to mean isomorphic. Fine. That would mean the proof involving the Liar and G would be isomorphic to the proof involving antinomy X and G-Prime. That does *NOT* get you to the claim you were making which was that G in some sense equivalent to The Liar. It is not. And your claim that G is not a truth bearer rests on your false claim that G and The Liar are somehow equivalent (though you refuse to say with respect to what). G is very clearly a truth-bearer. Go back and reread my original explanation. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isomorphism > Without carefully studying the philosophical underpinnings of the > concept if incompleteness: > > Incomplete(T) ↔ ∃φ ((T ⊬ φ) ∧ (T ⊬ ¬φ)). > > Incomplete T means that there exists a φ such that φ is not provable or > refutable in formal system T. > > The above is the precise measure of isomorphism. Anything meeting the > above specification is isomorphic to Gödel's G. > > One might not feel comfortable that isomorphic is what Gödel by "similar > undecidability proof". When we examine the above definition of > Incompleteness applied to the entire set of epistemological antinomies, > then we realize that all of them are making the category mistake (thanks > Flibble) of presuming that φ is a logic sentence / truth bearer. Gödel's G is most definitely a truth bearer. It asserts that a specific polynomial equation has an integer solution. That claim must either be true or false. André -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
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