XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/29/2025 12:53 PM, dart200 wrote:   
   > On 11/29/25 12:55 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. It includes the satement "nothing   
   >   
   > it's just not a coherent belief that could be truth, as truth must have   
   > an ability to be final, even if we haven't yet figured out what that   
   > finality is   
   >   
   >> 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.   
   >   
      
   --   
   a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve   
   basic semantic proofs like halting analysis   
      
   please excuse my pseudo-pyscript,   
      
   ~ nick   
      
   *You should make your signature not auto erase*   
      
   The problem with all "proofs" is that they   
   split up the direct connection to semantics   
   after the syllogism. This makes all modern   
   "proofs" no more than symbol wigglers.   
      
   --   
   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)