Newsportal USENET - Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method MTT

Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method MTT

Sujet : Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method MTT
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : sci.logic
Date : 03. Jun 2024, 14:56:35

Autres entêtes

Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v3kei3$3t5s5$3@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird

On 6/3/2024 2:19 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-02 13:01:15 +0000, olcott said:

On 6/2/2024 2:29 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-06-01 15:41:46 +0000, olcott said:
>
On 6/1/2024 2:32 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-05-31 15:47:31 +0000, olcott said:
>
On 5/31/2024 2:17 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-05-30 13:43:11 +0000, olcott said:
>
On 5/30/2024 1:52 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-05-29 13:31:31 +0000, olcott said:
>
On 5/29/2024 3:25 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-05-28 14:59:30 +0000, olcott said:
>
On 5/28/2024 1:59 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-05-27 14:34:14 +0000, olcott said:
>
?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).
>
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
false.
>
In other words Prolog has detected a cycle in the directed graph of the
evaluation sequence of the structure of the Liar Paradox. Experts seem
to think that Prolog is taking "not" and "true" as meaningless and is
only evaluating the structure of the expression.
>
The words "not" and "true" of Prolog are meaningful in some contexts
but not above. The word "true" is meaningful only when it has no arguments.
>
>
That Prolog construes any expression having the same structure as the
Liar Paradox as having a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation
sequence already completely proves my point. In other words Prolog
is saying that there is something wrong with the expression and it must
be rejected.
>
You could try
?- LP = not(true(LP), true(LP).
>
or
?- LP = not(true(LP), not(true(LP)).
>
The predicate unify_with_occurs_check checks whether the resulting
sructure is acyclic because that is its purpose. Whether a simple
>
Yes exactly. If I knew that Prolog did this then I would not have
created Minimal Type Theory that does this same thing. That I did
create MTT that does do this same thing makes my understanding much
deeper.
>
Prolog does not reject LP = not(true(LP)). It can accept it as
syntactically valid. Thaat unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))
fails does not mean anything except when it is used, and then it
does not reject but simplu evaluates to false, just like 1 = 2
is false but not erroneous.
>
>
It correctly determines that there is a cycle in the directed graph
of the evaluation sequence of the expression, which is like an
infinite loop in a program.
>
You can understand this or fail to understand this, disagreement is
incorrect. If you have any disagreement then please back up your
claims with proof.
>
unification like LP = not(true(LP)) does same is implementation
dependent as Prolog rules permit but do not require that. In a
typical implementation a simple unification does not check for
cycles.
>
>
ISO Prolog implementations have the built-in predicate
unify_with_occurs_check/2 for sound unification
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occurs_check#Sound_unification
>
Alternatively such expressions crash or remain stuck in infinite loops.
>
Not necessarily. What happes depends on the implementation and on what
you do with such structures. You already saw that your
>
?- LP = not(true(LP)).
>
does not crash and does not remain stuck in infinite loop.
>
Anyway, none of this is relevant to the topic of this thread or
topics of sci.logic.
>
If you want to talk nore about Prolog do it in comp.lang.prolog.
>
>
It is relevant to sci.logic in that it exposes fundamental flaws
with classical logic.
>
It does not expose any flaw in classical logic. Flaws in your
understanding of calssical logics are already sufficiently known.
>
    What has now been shown is that L is true if, and only if, it is
    false. Since L must be one or the other, it is both.
>
No, that has not been shown. Classical logic shows that no sentence
is true if and only if it is false. If you assumoe otherwise then
your assumption is false.
>
>
    *You removed the relevant context that the principle of explosion*
    *of classical logic is shown to be the source of the issue*
>
Principle of exposion is empirically true. It is not a problem of
classical logic. You have not shown that any paraconsistent system,
where principle of exposion does not apply, is any better.
>
>
The ONLY THING that can ever be correctly derived from a contradiction
is FALSE. People taking classical logic as infallible by simply ignoring
its inconsistencies are inherently incorrect.
>
The inconsistencies are not inconsistencies of logic. No logic can
prevent you from assuming an inconsistency but then it is your
inconsistency.
>
People taking classical logic as infallible do so because no situation
where it is wrong has been observed.
>
*Three laws of logic apply to all propositions*
¬(p ∧ ¬p) Law of non-contradiction
(p ∨ ¬p) Law of excluded middle
   p = p   Law of identity
Those laws don't prevent from assuming p. Those laws don't prevent
from assuming ¬p. Assuming both is assuming something false.

(1) We know that "Not all lemons are yellow", as it has been assumed to be true.
(2) We know that "All lemons are yellow", as it has been assumed to be true.
(3) Therefore, the two-part statement "All lemons are yellow or unicorns exist" must also be true, since the first part of the statement ("All lemons are yellow") has already been assumed, and the use of "or" means that if even one part of the statement is true, the statement as a whole must be true as well.
There is nothing about the color of lemons that has anything to do
with the existence of unicorns, thus the root cause of the huge mistake
of classical logic is to allow semantics to be divorced from logic.

If
something false is assumed then something false can be proven.
Conversely, if you know that the conclusion is false then classical
logic tells you that one of the preises is false (but does not
tell which one).
For propositions the law of identity should be written p <-> p.
The = symbol is reserved for non-propositions (in a first order
theory to individuals).

The Principle of explosion violates the {Law of non-contradiction}.
All premises must they themselves be propositions and POE simply
ignores that.
No, it does not. Each premise and the conclusion is either false
or true but not both.

Also the Liar Paradox violates the {Law of excluded middle}.
In any ordinary formal logic the liar paradox cannot be expressed.
If you want to use a system where it can then that is your problem.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

Date	Sujet	#	Auteur
11 May 24	True on the basis of meaning	209	olcott
11 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning	208	Richard Damon
11 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning	207	olcott
11 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning	206	Richard Damon
11 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning	205	olcott
11 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning	1	Richard Damon
12 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning	203	Mikko
12 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning	202	olcott
12 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning	201	Mikko
12 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning	200	olcott
12 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning	183	Richard Damon
12 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning	182	olcott
12 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning	181	Richard Damon
12 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning	180	olcott
12 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning	163	Richard Damon
12 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning	162	olcott
13 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning	161	Richard Damon
13 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning	160	olcott
13 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning	159	Richard Damon
13 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning	158	olcott
13 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning	2	olcott
13 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning	1	Richard Damon
13 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning	155	Richard Damon
13 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning	154	olcott
13 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning	153	Richard Damon
13 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning	152	olcott
13 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning	151	Richard Damon
13 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard !	150	olcott
14 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard !	149	Richard Damon
14 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard !	2	olcott
14 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard !	1	Richard Damon
14 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method	146	olcott
14 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method	145	Richard Damon
14 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method	2	olcott
14 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method	1	Richard Damon
14 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method	4	olcott
14 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method	3	Richard Damon
14 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method	2	olcott
15 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method	1	Richard Damon
15 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method	2	olcott
15 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method	1	Richard Damon
15 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method	4	olcott
15 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method	3	Richard Damon
15 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method	2	olcott
16 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method	1	Richard Damon
16 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method	4	olcott
16 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method	1	Richard Damon
16 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method	2	immibis
16 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method	1	olcott
16 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method	2	olcott
16 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method	1	Richard Damon
16 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method	126	olcott
16 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method	125	Richard Damon
16 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method	124	olcott
16 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method	123	Richard Damon
16 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method	2	olcott
16 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method	1	Richard Damon
16 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method	5	olcott
16 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method	4	Richard Damon
16 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method	3	olcott
17 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method	2	Richard Damon
17 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method	1	olcott
16 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method	115	olcott
16 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method	114	Richard Damon
16 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method	113	olcott
17 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method	112	Richard Damon
17 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method	111	olcott
17 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method	110	Richard Damon
17 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method	109	olcott
17 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method	108	Richard Damon
17 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method	105	olcott
17 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method	104	Richard Damon
17 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method	103	olcott
18 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method	102	Richard Damon
18 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method	101	olcott
18 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method	100	Richard Damon
18 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method	99	olcott
18 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method	98	Richard Damon
18 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method	97	olcott
18 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method	96	Richard Damon
18 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method	95	olcott
18 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method	94	Richard Damon
18 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method	93	olcott
18 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method	92	Richard Damon
18 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method	91	olcott
18 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method	90	Richard Damon
18 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method	2	olcott
18 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method	1	Richard Damon
18 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method	87	olcott
18 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method	86	Richard Damon
18 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method	85	olcott
19 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method	84	Richard Damon
19 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method	83	olcott
19 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method	82	Richard Damon
19 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method	81	olcott
19 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method	80	Richard Damon
19 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method	79	olcott
19 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method	63	Mikko
19 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method	62	olcott
20 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method	61	Mikko
20 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method	60	olcott
19 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method	15	Richard Damon
17 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method	2	olcott
13 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning	16	Mikko
13 May 24	Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Tarski	16	olcott