XPost: comp.theory   
   From: mikko.levanto@iki.fi   
      
   olcott kirjoitti 27.11.2025 klo 17.48:   
   > 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   
      
   There is no deep meaning that is not a part of the meaning.   
      
   --   
   Mikko   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)