XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.ai.philosophy   
   From: mikko.levanto@iki.fi   
      
   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.   
      
   For the most common forms of formal logic this paradox is not possible   
   because there is no syntax for definitions.   
      
   --   
   Mikko   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)