XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.ai.philosophy   
   From: user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid   
      
   On 11/29/25 12:55 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   > dart200 kirjoitti 28.11.2025 klo 19.29:   
   >> 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   
   >   
   > Nothing is final in philosophy. It includes the satement "nothing   
      
   it's just not a coherent belief that could be truth, as truth must have   
   an ability to be final, even if we haven't yet figured out what that   
   finality is   
      
   > is final in philosophy". Some philosphers may disagree with it or   
   > are at least not convinced so it is not final in philosophy and   
   > probably will never be. I don't think sufficiently many have said   
   > enough about it to even say that "Nothing is final in philosophy"   
   > is in philosophy.   
      
   --   
   a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve   
   basic semantic proofs like halting analysis   
      
   please excuse my pseudo-pyscript,   
      
   ~ nick   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)