Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory, comp.lang.prolog, comp.ai.philosophy |
| Subject | Re: Is this correct Prolog? |
| Date | 2022-05-03 22:24 -0500 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <t4srko$445$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (22 earlier) <t4ro31$1kc$1@dont-email.me> <t4rp26$a70$1@dont-email.me> <t4rruh$557$1@dont-email.me> <t4ru1s$mre$1@dont-email.me> <t4s1r5$n2b$1@dont-email.me> |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
On 5/3/2022 3:03 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2022-05-03 12:59, olcott wrote: >> On 5/3/2022 1:23 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>> On 2022-05-03 11:33, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/3/2022 12:17 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>> On 2022-05-03 11:05, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 5/3/2022 11:52 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>> >>> <snippage> >>> >>>>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> Here you're simply begging the question by assuming your own >>>>> conclusion: that being true and being provable are the same. >>>> >>>> This is not any mere assumption. >>>> >>>> The only way that any analytic expressions of language are correctly >>>> determined to be true is: >>> >>> 'True' and 'Correctly determined to be true' mean different things. >>> >> >> Yes that seems to be correct. >> On the other hand calling an expression of language true that has not >> be 'Correctly determined to be true' is an error. > > But calling it a "non-truth bearer" simply because it has not been > determined to be true would equally be an error. > That if correct. If is is impossibly true or false then it is not a truth bearer. > And it can be shown (i.e. correctly determined) that G is true, just not > within the system for which it was constructed. > unprovable in the system entails untrue in the system. >> If G is claimed to be true then this assertion must be supported by: >> 'Correctly determined to be true' otherwise the assessment of its >> truth is no more than a wild guess. >> >>>> (a) They are defined to be true. >>>> (b) They are derived from applying truth preserving operations to >>>> (a) or (b). Prolog knows this on the basis of its facts and rules. >>>> Facts are (a) and rules are (b). This is also known as sound >>>> deductive inference. >>> >>> These are YOUR assumptions. They have not been demonstrated. And they >>> are not consistent with the way in which the rest of the world talks >>> about truth. You are talking about provability, not truth. >>> >> >> If G is claimed to be true then this assertion must be supported by: >> 'Correctly determined to be true' otherwise the assessment of its >> truth is no more than a wild guess. >> >>>>> The whole point of Gödel's proof is that they cannot be the same >>>>> (at least not for non-trivial systems). >>>>> >>>> >>>> When G is not provable in PA, how is it shown to be true (wild guess)? >>>> What is the precise basis for assessing that G is true? please >>>> provide ALL the steps. >>> >>> "True" and "Known to be true" are entirely different things. >>> >> >> Yes, however: >> If G is claimed to be true then this assertion must be supported by: >> 'Correctly determined to be true' otherwise the assessment of its >> truth is no more than a wild guess. > > As I said, it can be shown in a higher order system. Sure, yet it is only true in this system which also makes it provable in that system. > But even if it could not be, if we can show that G can only be true in > cases where it is not provable in T, then there are only two possible > conclusions: > It can't be true in T and unprovable in T. > Either G is true and unprovable in T, in which case T is incomplete. > Or G is false and provable in T, in which case T is inconsistent. > If G is provable in U then it is true in U. If G is unprovable in T then it is untrue in T. G is unprovable in T because it is semantically incorrect. > Which is exactly what Gödel's theorem states: A system can be consistent > or it can be complete but it cannot be both. An incomplete system is > still useful. An inconsistent system is not. Ergo he phrases this as an > consistent system must be incomplete [with the usual caveats about > meeting some minimum threshold of expressive power]. > >>> Consider the equation Srt((2748 + 87)^3) = 150,948.776 (to 3 decimal >>> places) >>> >> >> (2748 + 87)^3 = 22,785,532,875 >> What are you sorting with Srt()? > > That was obviously a type. Sqrt(). > >>> That equation is true but it is unlikely anyone knew this to be true >>> until now since I very much doubt anyone had previously considered >>> that specific equation. That's doesn't mean it wasn't true all along. >>> Just that no one knew it was true. >>> >>> There are all sorts of cases where we know one thing without knowing >>> all things. I can know with certainty that (A ∨ B) is true meaning >>> that I know that *at least* one of A or B must be true while still >>> not knowing the truth value of either. These sorts of things occur >>> all the time. >>> >> >> That is not true. If A and B are syntactically correct expressions of >> a formal language yet neither one is semantically correct then we have >> the same case as the Liar Paradox not being a truth bearer, thus (A ∨ >> B) is neither true nor false. > > But your whole notion of 'semantically correct' is recognized by no one > but you and is antithetical to the entire notion of a formal system. And > what I describe above is a situation which *very* commonly arises in > proofs. They're called proofs by dilemma and take the form: > > A → C > B → C > (A ∨ B) > > Therefore C > > We draw a conclusion from A or B without knowing the truth value of > either. This strategy, for example, was used by Euclid in his proof that > no largest prime exists. > > If you declare A and B to be 'non-truth bearers' simply because you > don't know whether they are true or false, then this and many other > proofs completely fall apart. It is not because they have unknown truth values. > >>> And not being provable in PA and not being provable are also two >>> different things. >>> >> >> I know that. Yet not being provable in PA also means that G cannot be >> derived in PA by applying truth preserving operations to the axioms Z >> of PA or other expressions Y derived from Z or Y. >> >> If G is correctly determined to be true then there must be some >> process detailing the steps of how it is 'Correctly determined to be >> true'. > > Just not in PA. OK great this is great progress! >> Lacking these steps one cannot correctly assert that G is true, only >> that G might possibly be true. >> >>>>> The question is not whether it is true but whether it is a truth >>>>> *bearer*. >>>>> >>>>> You make the claim that The Liar is not a truth bearer (a plausible >>>>> claim depending on one's definitions). >>>>> >>>>> You then jump to the conclusion that G is not a truth bearer based >>>>> on your assertion that it is "equivalent" to The Liar. But it is >>>>> *NOT* equivalent. It merely bears a close relationship. But you >>>>> refuse to actually consider what the nature of that relationship; >>>>> there are both similiarites and differences. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Precise equivalence is defined by this: >>>> Incomplete(T) ↔ ∃φ ((T ⊬ φ) ∧ (T ⊬ ¬φ)). >>>> >>>> The Liar Paradox can be neither proven nor refuted where T is the >>>> entire body of analytic knowledge and φ is LP. >>> >>> The Liar Paradox is a self-contradiction. The Gödel sentence is not. >> >> Until you understand that G can only be correctly asserted to be true >> in X if G is provable in X. G may be true in X without a proof in X, >> yet it cannot be correctly asserted to be true in X without such a proof. > > This is your confusion, not mine. We can assert that G is not provable > and that ¬G is also not provable without asserting anything at all about > whether G is true and still conclude that X is incomplete. Yes, but, only because the mathematical definition of Incomplete does not screen out semantically erroneous expression of the language of X: Incomplete(T) ↔ ∃φ ((T ⊬ φ) ∧ (T ⊬ ¬φ)). >>> >>>>> Whereas the Liar has no content other than to assert its own >>>>> falsity, Gödel's G has definite content. It does not assert its own >>>>> unprovability, it asserts a very specific mathematical claim, one >>>>> which must by its nature be either true or false. Therefore G *is* >>>>> a truth bearer. >>>>> >>>>> The formulation that G asserts its own unprovability is the >>>>> Cliff-Notes version of the proof. It's not the substance of the >>>>> actual proof. >>>>> >>>>> André >>>> >>>> It is isomorphic to the substance of the actual proof. >>> >>> No. It is not. G asserts a claim about mathematics. It does not >>> assert anything about itself. However, within the metalanguage we can >>> prove that G can only be true if it is not provable within the system >>> under consideration. >>> >> >> Incomplete(T) ↔ ∃φ ((T ⊬ φ) ∧ (T ⊬ ¬φ)). >> When both G and the LP exactly meet the official mathematical >> definition of incompleteness then G and LP are proven to be isomorphic. > > LP doesn't meet said definition. LP is a paradox of natural language. > There is no 'isomorphism' between G and LP. And if you claim there is, > you must state what that isomorphism actually is. It is a little iffy to say that the LP fits into the above formula making it isomorphic to Gödel's G unless we can at least specify the formal system that LP is a member of. Tarski seemed to have provided a very clean basis to formalize the Liar Paradox. I am working on deriving it. >>>> Gödel says: >>>> since the undecidable proposition [R(q); q] states precisely that q >>>> belongs to K, i.e. according to (1), that [R(q); q] is not provable. >>>> We are therefore confronted with a proposition which asserts its own >>>> unprovability. >>> >>> We are confronted *in our analysis* with such a situation. But there >>> is no proposition which directly asserts such a thing. >>> >> You have to pay attention to this since the undecidable proposition [R(q); q] states precisely that q belongs to K, i.e. according to (1), that [R(q); q] is not provable. It is the English language version of a formal logic sentence. >> You are letting weasel words leak semantic meaning. > > What does 'leak semantic meaning' even mean? You were simply looking at the wrong lines of the Gödel quote. > > André > >> My analysis pertaining to the official mathematical definition of >> incompleteness cuts through these weasel words. >> >> This proves that G the LP and the following sentence are all isomorphic: >> "This sentence is unprovable". >> >>> The problem is you refuse to look at the actual math and instead look >>> only at the text commentary which is merely a guide to, not the >>> actual substance of, the proof. >>> >>> André >>> >> >> > > -- 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
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