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

On 3/7/25 9:36 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/7/2025 6:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/6/25 9:26 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/6/2025 6:36 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/5/25 7:36 PM, olcott wrote:

>

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

>
Of course, since you have admitted that your logic system is based on the FRAUD that you are allowed to change the fundamental meaning of core terms of the system,

 How the Hell does that have anything to do with the above Prolog?
Rambling incoherently DOES NOT COUNT AS REASONING and makes you
look very foolish.
 

Because your Prolog has nothing to do with the subject of the thread.
This just shows how much your "logic" is based on the FRAUD you have admitted to.
You apparently never really understood the basic terms of art, so created your own and claimed that you get to decide what the terems meant in the existing systems.
You are just nothing but a pathological liar with a total disregard for what is the trutn, and apparently have no idea what truth actually is.
Sorry, but it seems you are running late for your appointment at the Lake House to see your life go up in the smoke of the eternal fire.