On 9/3/24 8:44 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/3/2024 5:38 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-09-02 13:01:23 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 9/2/2024 2:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-09-01 13:47:00 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/1/2024 7:52 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-08-31 18:48:18 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *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)).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> According to Prolog semantics "false" would also be a correct
>>>>>> response.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
>>>>>>> false.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To the extend Prolog formalizes anything, that only formalizes
>>>>>> the condept of self-reference. I does not say anything about
>>>>>> int.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Prolog does not say anything about truth-bearers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It may seem that way if you have no idea what
>>>>> (a) a directed is
>>>>> (b) what cycles in a directed graph are
>>>>> (c) What an evaluation sequence is
>>>>
>>>> More relevanto would be what a "truth-maker" is.
>>>> Anyway, it seems that Prolog does not say anything about
>>>> truth-bearers because Prolog does not say anything about
>>>> truth-bearers.
>>>>
>>>
>>> When Prolog derives expression x from Facts and Rules
>>> by applying the truth preserving operations of Rules to
>>> Facts is the truthmaker for truth-bearer x.
>>
>> A Prolog impementation applies Prolog operations.
>
> Which are (like logic) for the most part truth preserving.
> If (A & B) then A
But Prolog can not express ALL logical statement.
>
>> For some cases
>> Prolog offers several operations letting the implementation to
>> choose which one to apply.
>
> I don't thing so. Once the Facts and Rules are specified
> Prolog chooses whatever Facts and Rules to prove x or not.
> It is back-chained inference.
But the set of Prolog operations are limited compared to logic.
>
>> Consequently some goals may evaluate
>> to true in some implementations and false in others, for example
>>
>> L = [L].
>>
>
>
|
|