Re: This is how I overturn the Tarski Undefinability theorem

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.

The purpose of this work was to show that algorithmic
undecidability is a misconception providing more details
than Wittgenstein's rebuttal of Gödel.

Which it didn't show.

https://www.liarparadox.org/Wittgenstein.pdf

--
Mikko