Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    sci.logic    |    Logic -- math, philosophy & computationa    |    262,912 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 261,693 of 262,912    |
|    olcott to Mikko    |
|    Re: A new foundation for correct reasoni    |
|    05 Dec 25 11:43:41    |
      XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.lang.prolog       From: polcott333@gmail.com              On 12/5/2025 3:38 AM, Mikko wrote:       > olcott kirjoitti 4.12.2025 klo 16.06:       >> On 12/4/2025 2:58 AM, Mikko wrote:       >>> Tristan Wibberley kirjoitti 4.12.2025 klo 4.32:       >>>> On 30/11/2025 09:58, Mikko wrote:       >>>>       >>>>> Note that the meanings of       >>>>> ?- G = not(provable(F, G)).       >>>>> and       >>>>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(G, not(provable(F, G))).       >>>>> are different. The former assigns a value to G, the latter does not.       >>>       >>>> For sufficiently informal definitions of "value".       >>>> And for sufficiently wrong ones too!       >>>       >>> It is sufficiently clear what "value" of a Prolog variable means.       >       >> % This sentence cannot be proven in F       >> ?- G = not(provable(F, G)).       >> G = not(provable(F, G)).       >> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(G, not(provable(F, G))).       >> false.       >>       >> I would say that the above Prolog is the 100%       >> complete formal specification of:       >>       >> "This sentence cannot be proven in F"       >       > The first query can be regarded as a question whether "G = not(provable(       > F, G))" can be proven for some F and some G. The answer is that it can       > for every F and for (at least) one G, which is not(provable(G)).       >       > The second query can be regarded as a question whether "G = not(provable       > (F, G))" can be proven for some F and some G that do not contain cycles.       > The answer is that in the proof system of Prolog it cannot be.       >              No that it flatly incorrect. The second question is this:       Is "G = not(provable(F, G))." semantically sound?              --       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)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca