Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.theory > #49569

Re: Is this correct Prolog?

From olcott <polcott2@gmail.com>
Newsgroups comp.theory, comp.lang.prolog, comp.ai.philosophy
Subject Re: Is this correct Prolog?
Date 2022-05-03 12:05 -0500
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <t4rncl$qtf$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References (16 earlier) <87a6bzfqkz.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <t4pulq$bci$1@dont-email.me> <t4rh4c$t51$1@dont-email.me> <t4rk2m$rei$1@dont-email.me> <t4rmkb$jrt$1@dont-email.me>

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On 5/3/2022 11:52 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> 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.
> 

I have no idea what you mean by 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). 

Incomplete(T) ↔ ∃φ ((T ⊬ φ) ∧ (T ⊬ ¬φ)).
It is the fact that the mathematical definition of Incompleteness simply 
assumes that φ is semantically correct that is the core mistake of the 
mathematical definition of Incompleteness.

> G is very clearly a truth-bearer. Go back and 
> reread my original explanation.
> 

When G is not provable in PA, how is it shown to be true?
If it is not shown to be true in PA then we have the strawman error.

>> 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
> 

When G is not provable in PA, how is it shown to be true?
If it is not shown to be true in PA then we have the strawman error.

-- 
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

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