Re: Mathematical incompleteness has always been a misconception --- Tarski

On 2/22/2025 3:12 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-02-21 23:22:23 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 2/20/2025 3:01 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-02-18 13:50:22 +0000, olcott said:
>

There is nothing like that in the following concrete example:
LP := ~True(LP)
>
In other words you are saying the Prolog is incorrect
to reject the Liar Paradox.
>
Above translated to Prolog
>
?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).

>
According to Prolog rules LP = not(true(LP)) is permitted to fail.
If it succeeds the operations using LP may misbehave. A memory
leak is also possible.
>

?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
false

>
This merely means that the result of unification would be that LP conains
itself. It could be a selmantically valid result but is not in the scope
of Prolog language.
>

>
It does not mean that. You are wrong.

 It does in the context where it was presented. More generally,
unify_with_occurs_check also fails if the arguments are not
unfiable. But this possibility is already excluded by their
successfull unification.
 

IT CANNOT POSSIBLY BE SEMANTICALLY VALID
YOU ARE 100% COMPLETELY WRONG ABOUT THIS
prolog spots and rejects expressions that have the
"some kind of infinite structure" Liar Paradox
form of pathological self-reference. See page 3.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350789898_Prolog_detects_and_rejects_pathological_self_reference_in_the_Godel_sentence

I am not going bother to quote Clocksin and Mellish
proving that you are wrong.

 You are right, a quote that does not support your claim
is not a good idea.
 

--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer