Re: The key undecidable instance that I know about --- Truth-bearers ONLY

On 3/11/25 7:12 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/11/2025 6:12 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/10/25 10:39 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/10/2025 9:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/10/25 9:45 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/10/2025 5:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/9/25 11:39 PM, olcott wrote:

>
LP := ~True(LP)  DOES SPECIFY INFINITE RECURSION.

>
WHich is irrelevent, as that isn't the statement in view, only what could be shown to be a meaning of the actual statement.
>

>
The Liar Paradox PROPERLY FORMALIZED <is> Infinitely recursive
thus semantically incorrect.

>
But is irrelevent to your arguement.
>
>

>
"It would then be possible to reconstruct the antinomy of the liar
  in the metalanguage, by forming in the language itself a sentence"

>
Right, the "Liar" is in the METALANGUAGE, not the LANGUAGE where the predicate is defined.
>
You are just showing you don't understand the concept of Metalanguage.
>

>
Thus anchoring his whole proof in the Liar Paradox even if
you do not understand the term "metalanguage" well enough
to know this.

>
Yes, there is a connection to the liar's paradox, and that is that he shows that the presumed existance of a Truth Predicate forces the logic system to have to resolve the liar's paradox.
>

>
bool True(X)
{
   if (~unify_with_occurs_check(X))
     return false;
   else if (~Truth_Bearer(X))
    return false;
   else
    return IsTrue(X);
}
>
LP := ~True(LP)
True(LP) resolves to false.
True(~LP) resolves to false.
>
X = "A box of rocks"
True(X) resolves to false.
True(~X) resolves to false.
>
>

>
Not the system that Tarski is using.
>
>

 *That is 100% of his complete error*
 

What, you think a system can't have the properties of the Natural Number system?
He doesn't assume much in the logic system, try to show what he assumes incorrectly, and that you would remove from it.