XPost: comp.theory, sci.math   
   From: mikko.levanto@iki.fi   
      
   polcott kirjoitti 28.11.2025 klo 16.03:   
   > On 11/28/2025 2:06 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.   
   >>   
   >> For the most common forms of formal logic this paradox is not possible   
   >> because there is no syntax for definitions.   
   >   
   > Lookup Olcott's Minimal Type Theory   
   > I created Olcott's Minimal Type Theory   
   > for the sole purpose of formalizing   
   > Pathological-self-reference(Olcott 2004)   
   >   
   > LP := ~True(LP)    // LP {is defined as} ~True(LP)   
   > that expands to ~True(~True(~True(~True(~True(~True(...))))))   
   >   
   > G := (F ⊬ G)  // G is defined as unprovable in F   
   > ...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which   
   > asserts its own unprovability. 15 … (Gödel 1931:40-41)   
   >   
   > Gödel, Kurt 1931.   
   > On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia   
   > Mathematica And Related Systems   
      
   Nice to see that you don't disagree.   
      
   --   
   Mikko   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)