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

On 3/8/25 1:32 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/8/2025 7:54 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

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.
>

 Prolog proves that the Liar Paradox is infinitely recursive.
When it is proven that the Liar Paradox <is> infinitely
recursive then any notion of undecidability based on it is
ill-conceived.
 

But only when expressed in that simple form.
It doesn't say that, for example, Tarski's proof is based on similar recursive statments, because it doesn't ACTUALLY say that x was defined to be exactly !True(x), but that x was defined in a way that it was true if and only if True(x) was false.
In The paper's own words:

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.

The key here is that the reduction to the liar paradox only happens in the interpretation in the metalanguage, not in the lanugage that the statement is itself expressed in.
Just like Godel's G, that in the Theory, as a mathematical statement about numbers, that has no possibility to be "recursive" in that manner.
Of course the problem is that expression for G (or Tarski's p) can not be expressed in Prolog, as it is based on Universal Qualifiers over an infinite set, something Prolog can not handle, or it seems your own logic.
Then we have the fact that you have admitted to having changed the meaning of soe core terms-of-art (without an exhaustive listing) so everything you claim needs to be considered suspect, as we don't know what you actually mean by them.
All you are doing is proving that you think lying about what you talk about is ok, and that perhaps you are too stupid to understand what you don't understand, as apparently if you can't express it in a form that Prolog will accept, it isn't true, which means your "logic" doesn't have even the full properties of the Natural Numbers.