Liste des Groupes | Revenir à s logic |
On 9/1/2024 7:52 AM, Mikko wrote:More relevanto would be what a "truth-maker" is.On 2024-08-31 18:48:18 +0000, olcott said:It may seem that way if you have no idea what
*This is how I overturn the Tarski Undefinability theorem*According to Prolog semantics "false" would also be a correct
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)).
response.
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).To the extend Prolog formalizes anything, that only formalizes
false.
the condept of self-reference. I does not say anything about
int.
When formalized as Prolog unify_with_occurs_check()Prolog does not say anything about truth-bearers.
detects a cycle in the directed graph of the evaluation
sequence proving the LP is not a truth bearer.
(a) a directed is
(b) what cycles in a directed graph are
(c) What an evaluation sequence is
If you do know these things then Prolog proved that LPProlog does not prove anythng about truth bearers. Certain kind
has no truth-maker and thus cannot be a truth-bearer.
No, you did not.I showed it to everyone knowing (a)(b)(c)The purpose of this work was to show that algorithmicWhich it didn't show.
undecidability is a misconception providing more details
than Wittgenstein's rebuttal of Gödel.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.