XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.ai.philosophy   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   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   
      
   --   
   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)