*This is how I overturn the Tarski Undefinability theorem*
An analytic expression of language is any expression of formal or
natural language that can be proven true or false entirely on the basis
of a connection to its semantic meaning in this same language.
This connection must be through a sequence of truth preserving
operations from expression x of language L to meaning M in L. A lack of
such connection from x or ~x in L is construed as x is not a truth
bearer in L.
Tarski's Liar Paradox from page 248
It would then be possible to reconstruct the antinomy of the liar
in the metalanguage, by forming in the language itself a sentence
x such that the sentence of the metalanguage which is correlated
with x asserts that x is not a true sentence.
https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_247_248.pdf
Formalized as:
x ∉ True if and only if p
where the symbol 'p' represents the whole sentence x
https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf
*Formalized as Prolog*
?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
false.
When formalized as Prolog unify_with_occurs_check()
detects a cycle in the directed graph of the evaluation
sequence proving the LP is not a truth bearer.
The purpose of this work was to show that algorithmic
undecidability is a misconception providing more details
than Wittgenstein's rebuttal of Gödel.
https://www.liarparadox.org/Wittgenstein.pdf
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
|
|