XPost: comp.theory   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/27/2025 2:17 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   > olcott kirjoitti 26.11.2025 klo 17.20:   
   >> On 11/26/2025 4:17 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>> olcott kirjoitti 14.11.2025 klo 16.49:   
   >>>> On 11/14/2025 3:09 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>> On 2025-11-14 00:56:17 +0000, Tristan Wibberley said:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> On 13/11/2025 09:05, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 2025-11-12 14:45:34 +0000, olcott said:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> ... formalized in Minimal   
   >>>>>>>> Type Theory as LP := ~True(LP).   
   >>>>>>>> (where A := B means A is defined as B).   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> https://philpapers.org/rec/OLCREO   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Can someone review my actual reasoning   
   >>>>>>>> elaborated in the paper?   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> If you want to use the term "formal language" you must prove that   
   >>>>>>> there is a Turing machine that can determine whether a string is a   
   >>>>>>> valid sentence of your language. If no such Turing machine exists   
   >>>>>>> you have no justifiction for the use of the word "formal".   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> It looks, at a glance, like his system has no theorems with loops in   
   >>>>>> them. The system is "safe" and very small.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> It does not look small. It seems to have very many postulates, perhaps   
   >>>>> infinitely many. The intent is that it be complete so it probably is   
   >>>>> only paraconsistent or perhaps even inconsistent.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> My system rejects expressions of language that cannot   
   >>>> possibly be resolved to a truth value because they have   
   >>>> pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004)   
   >>>>   
   >>>> G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝)   
   >>>   
   >>> That can be evaluated ir sufficient defitions are given. In particular,   
   >>   
   >> Directed Graph of evaluation sequence   
   >> 00 ↔               01 02   
   >> 01 G   
   >> 02 ¬               03   
   >> 03 Prov            04   
   >> 04 Gödel_Number_of 01  // cycle   
   >>   
   >> ?- G = not(provable(F, G)).   
   >> G = not(provable(F, G)).   
   >> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(G, not(provable(F, G))).   
   >> false.   
   >>   
   >> You do not understand the deep meaning of   
   >> unify_with_occurs_check()   
   >   
   > That you need to lie about other people indicates that you are not sure   
   > whether what you say is true but you want anyway that others believe it.   
   >   
   > Of course I do understand the meaning of unify_with_occurs_check/2. It   
      
      
   That is not what I said. I said the deep meaning   
      
      
   Final Resolution of the Liar Paradox   
      
   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.   
      
   Formalized 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   
      
      
      
      
   --   
   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)