XPost: comp.theory, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/29/2025 2:48 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   > 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.   
   >   
      
   This seems to be a nonsense phrase that you   
   use whenever you cannot understand what I have said.   
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott   
      
   My 28 year goal has been to make   
   "true on the basis of meaning" computable.   
      
   This required establishing a new foundation   
   for correct reasoning.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)