XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/29/2025 2:55 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   > dart200 kirjoitti 28.11.2025 klo 19.29:   
   >> On 11/28/25 12:06 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>> olcott kirjoitti 27.11.2025 klo 18.28:   
   >>>> On 11/27/2025 8:36 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>> This sentence is not true.   
   >>>>> It is not true about what?   
   >>>>> It is not true about being not true.   
   >>>>> It is not true about being not true about what?   
   >>>>> It is not true about being not true about being not true.   
   >>>>> Oh I see you are stuck in a loop!   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> The simple English shows that the Liar Paradox never   
   >>>>> gets to the point.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> This is formalized in the Prolog programming language   
   >>>>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)).   
   >>>>> LP = not(true(LP)).   
   >>>>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).   
   >>>>> False.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Failing an occurs check seems to mean that the   
   >>>>> resolution of an expression remains stuck in   
   >>>>> infinite recursion. This is more clearly seen below.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> In Olcott's Minimal Type Theory   
   >>>>> LP := ~True(LP)    // LP {is defined as} ~True(LP)   
   >>>>> that expands to ~True(~True(~True(~True(~True(~True(...))))))   
   >>>>> https://philarchive.org/archive/PETMTT-4v2   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> The above seems to prove that the Liar Paradox   
   >>>>> has merely been semantically unsound all these years.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> *Final Resolution of the Liar Paradox*   
   >>>> https://philpapers.org/archive/OLCFRO.pdf   
   >>>   
   >>> Nothing is final in philosophy.   
   >>   
   >> self-contradictory statement bro   
   >>   
   >> clearly at least something much be final, because if nothing was final   
   >> then that premise would become final and contradict itself   
   >   
   > Nothing is final in philosophy.   
      
   Semantic tautologies are always final even   
   if no one understands them.   
      
   Any expression of language that is proven true   
   entirely on the basis of its meaning expressed   
   in language is a semantic tautology.   
      
   > It includes the satement "nothing   
   > is final in philosophy". Some philosphers may disagree with it or   
   > are at least not convinced so it is not final in philosophy and   
   > probably will never be. I don't think sufficiently many have said   
   > enough about it to even say that "Nothing is final in philosophy"   
   > is in philosophy.   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott   
      
   My 28 year goal has been to make   
   "true on the basis of meaning" computable.   
      
   This required establishing a new foundation   
   for correct reasoning.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)