XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, sci.lang   
   From: mikko.levanto@iki.fi   
      
   olcott kirjoitti 6.12.2025 klo 14.24:   
   > On 12/6/2025 2:37 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >> olcott kirjoitti 5.12.2025 klo 18.41:   
   >>> On 12/5/2025 2:48 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>> olcott kirjoitti 3.12.2025 klo 17.59:   
   >>>>> On 12/3/2025 4:41 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 2.12.2025 klo 16.00:   
   >>>>>>> On 12/2/2025 2:53 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 1.12.2025 klo 19.15:   
   >>>>>>>>> On 12/1/2025 5:02 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 29.11.2025 klo 23.59:   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> G := (F ⊬ G) // G says of itself that it is unprovable in F   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> With a reasonable type system that is a type error:   
   >>>>>>>>>> - the symbol ⊬ requires a sentence on the right side   
   >>>>>>>>>> - the value of the ⊬ operation is a truth value   
   >>>>>>>>>> - the symbol := requires the same type on both sides   
   >>>>>>>>>> - thus G must be both a sentence and a truth value   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> But G cannot be both. A sentence has a truth value but it   
   >>>>>>>>>> isn't one.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> % 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.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> It is an expression of language having no truth value   
   >>>>>>>>> because it is not a logic sentence.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_(mathematical_logic)   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Yes, that is the exxential difference between the two G's.   
   >>>>>>>> The expession F ⊬ G has a truth value because it is either   
   >>>>>>>> true or false   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> I propose that is a false assumption.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> If you want to propose anygthng like that you should   
   >>>>>> (a) specify what is the assumption you want to propose as false   
   >>>>>> (b) why should that assumption be considered false   
   >>>>>> (c) what assumption would be true or at least less obviously false   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> ?- G = not(provable(F, G)).   
   >>>>> G = not(provable(F, G)).   
   >>>>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(G, not(provable(F, G))).   
   >>>>> false.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> G is neither True nor False its resolution remains stuck   
   >>>>> in an infinite loop.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> BEGIN:(Clocksin & Mellish 2003:254)   
   >>>>> Finally, a note about how Prolog matching sometimes differs from the   
   >>>>> unification used in Resolution. Most Prolog systems will allow you to   
   >>>>> satisfy goals like:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> equal(X, X).   
   >>>>> ?- equal(foo(Y), Y).   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> that is, they will allow you to match a term against an uninstantiated   
   >>>>> subterm of itself. In this example, foo(Y) is matched against Y,   
   >>>>> which appears within it. As a result, Y will stand for foo(Y),   
   >>>>> which is   
   >>>>> foo(foo(Y)) (because of what Y stands for), which is foo(foo(foo(Y))),   
   >>>>> and so on. So Y ends up standing for some kind of infinite structure.   
   >>>>> END:(Clocksin & Mellish 2003:254)   
   >>>>   
   >>>> As even (a) is not answered we must interprete the above to mean   
   >>>> that you retracted your proposal.   
   >>   
   >>> If you understood the above you would understand   
   >>> that I already answered (a) in 100% complete detail.   
   >>   
   >> Apparently "that" in your "I propopose that is a false assumption"   
   >> refers to my "yes" response to your previous posting. But that   
   >> response does not oresent any assumption.   
   >>   
   >> As everyone can see, you did not indentify the assumption.   
   >>   
   >>> The assumption that is false is that G is not   
   >>> semantically incoherent.   
   >>   
   >> That assumption is not present in any plase that the word "that"   
   >> could refer to.   
   >   
   > I explained all of the details of how G is   
   > semantically incoherent and you understood none of it.   
      
      
   The question (a) is still unanswered, apparently because the answer   
   would reveal that your claim the equestion is about is false.   
      
   --   
   Mikko   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)