XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/1/2025 3:42 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   > olcott kirjoitti 29.11.2025 klo 18.59:   
   >> On 11/29/2025 3:51 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>> olcott kirjoitti 28.11.2025 klo 20.20:   
   >>>> On 11/28/2025 11:36 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:   
   >>>>> dart200  wrote:   
   >>>>>> does the logical construction:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> "this sentence is false"   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> place a hard limit on our ability to understand truth:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> yes/no???   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> No, not at all.  Anybody beyond early childhood will recognise it as a   
   >>>>> mere frivolous distraction from any seeking after the truth.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> If that was true then there would be at least   
   >>>> one accepted resolution of the Liar Paradox.   
   >>>   
   >>> There is. A resolution can be accepted even if you don't accept it.   
   >>   
   >> Thee are zero resolutions to the liar paradox   
   >> that are even widely accepted.   
   >   
   > The claim was not about "widely accepted".   
   >   
      
   % This sentence is not true.   
   ?- LP = not(true(LP)).   
   LP = not(true(LP)).   
   ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).   
   false.   
      
   Proves beyond all possibly doubt that the Liar   
   Paradox is semantically incorrect to all that   
   understand this proof.   
      
   --   
   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)