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

On 2025-03-08 18:32:27 +0000, olcott said:

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.

The question whther there is a well formed sentence A so that neither A nor
not A is provable does not involve any infinite recursion.
--
Mikko