Sujet : Re: This is how I overturn the Tarski Undefinability theorem
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : sci.logicDate : 08. Sep 2024, 13:44:56
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <vbk688$1u1js$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 9/8/2024 3:45 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-09-07 13:06:52 +0000, olcott said:
On 9/7/2024 3:35 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-09-06 12:22:04 +0000, olcott said:
>
The fundamental architectural overview of all Prolog implementations
is the same True(x) means X is derived by applying Rules (AKA truth preserving operations) to Facts.
>
The details are permitted to differ.
>
>
Instead of using any single order of logic we simultaneously
represent an arbitrary number of orders of logic in a type
hierarchy knowledge ontology.
The type system of Prolog is different.
Yes I know that. The architecture of Prolog is used
the implementation details are scrapped.
?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
false. // LP is rejected as cyclic
Even with Prolog just the way it is it is not as stupid
as Tarski's system that doesn't know to reject the Liar
Paradox.
https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_247_248.pdf-- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Geniushits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
This is how I overturn the Tarski Undefinability theorem
Re: This is how I overturn the Tarski Undefinability theorem
