XPost: sci.logic, comp.theory   
   From: rjh@cpax.org.uk   
      
   On 02/10/2025 20:49, olcott wrote:   
   > On 10/2/2025 2:42 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:   
   >> On 02/10/2025 20:15, olcott wrote:   
   >>> On 10/2/2025 1:29 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:   
   >>   
   >>    
   >>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> WHAT new idea?   
   >>> *My whole grand opus is proven right here by is coherence*   
   >>> https://claude.ai/share/45d3ca9c-fa9a-4a02-9e22-c6acd0057275   
   >>   
   >> An LLM replies:   
   >   
   > If you meant that you spoke with the same LLM   
   > at the same point in the conversation   
      
   Not what I said, and not what I meant.   
      
   >> --------------------------------------------------------   
   >> The first logic error is the sentence:   
   >> "So the simple prolog finally resolved the liar paradox as not   
   >> a bearer of truth."   
   >>   
   >> Why it's an error: the claim contradicts the author’s earlier   
   >> correct concession that the Prolog example does not prove the   
   >> philosophical point. Rejecting a syntactic construction via an   
   >> occurs-check is a computational diagnostics move, not a   
   >> philosophical proof that the natural-language Liar lacks truth-   
   >> value. The sentence conflates a model- level implementation   
   >> decision with a settled metaphysical conclusion.   
   >> --------------------------------------------------------   
   >>   
   >> Don't bother replying here if you don't want to. You can take   
   >> it up directly with an LLM.   
   >>   
   >   
   > *You are cheating in the same way*   
      
   Don't tell me. Tell your new friend.   
      
   --   
   Richard Heathfield   
   Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk   
   "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999   
   Sig line 4 vacant - apply within   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)