XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.ai.philosophy   
   From: chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/28/2025 4:49 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:   
   > Chris M. Thomasson has brought this to us :   
   >> On 11/28/2025 9:29 AM, dart200 wrote:   
   >>> On 11/28/25 12:06 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>> 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.   
   >>>   
   >>> self-contradictory statement bro   
   >>>   
   >>> clearly at least something much be final, because if nothing was   
   >>> final then that premise would become final and contradict itself   
   >>   
   >> How many digits does PI have?   
   >   
   > 10 in decimal.   
      
   It's funny. PO with his "artificial abort" would say PI went on for too   
   many symbols, no matter what radix. But how would he know if it was   
   reading from a buffer that had more symbols in it. It's finite, but PO   
   cuts it off and says its non-halting even though he cut himself off at   
   the knees before the buffer was fully read. The black box program is   
   simply outputting symbols of pi. PO says that's too many, says   
   non-halting. The program under consideration has many more symbols to   
   process, but it got aborted...   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)