XPost: comp.theory   
   From: mikko.levanto@iki.fi   
      
   olcott kirjoitti 28.11.2025 klo 17.21:   
   > On 11/28/2025 2:40 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >>   
   >   
   > That the directly graph of the evaluation sequence   
   > of a formal expression contains a cycle   
   >   
   > LP := ~True(LP)   
   > that expands to ~True(~True(~True(~True(~True(~True(...))))))   
   > means that it is semantically unsound.   
      
   Irrelevant to the fact that there is no deep meaning that is not a part   
   of the meaning.   
      
   Also irrelevant the meaning and deep meaning of the library predicate   
   unify_with_occurs_check/2.   
      
   --   
   Mikko   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)