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 261,807 of 262,912    |
|    olcott to Python    |
|    Re: A new foundation for correct reasoni    |
|    10 Dec 25 10:14:10    |
      XPost: sci.math, comp.theory       From: polcott333@gmail.com              On 12/10/2025 9:01 AM, Python wrote:       > Le 10/12/2025 à 15:11, olcott a écrit :       > ..       >> unify_with_occurs_check() examines the directed       >> graph of the evaluation sequence of an expression.       >> When it detects a cycle that indicates that an       >> expression would remain stuck in recursive       >> evaluation never to be resolved to a truth value.       >       >       > unify_with_occurs_check(G, not(provable(F, G))). returning false does       > NOT prove that       > G = not(provable(F, G)) “gets stuck in infinite recursion.”       >       > All it proves is this:       >       > With finite Prolog terms, you cannot unify a variable with a structure       > that contains that same variable — the occurs-check rejects cyclic self-       > reference.       >              cycle means cycle in the directed graph as shown below.              > So the failure of unification means only:       >       > Prolog refuses to build an illegal self-referential term,       >       > not that the logical statement or predicate would “infinitely recurse.”       >               "Prolog implementations usually omit the occurs        check for reasons of efficiency, which can lead        to circular data structures and looping."       as shown in the image of the directed graph with a cycle              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occurs_check#Rational_tree_unification              The reason why I know these deeper details is that I       created Olcott's Minimal Type Theory to translate       formal expressions into the directed graph of their       evaluation sequence.              > This is the usual Olcott confusion:       > he mistakes a language-specific operational failure (Prolog term       > construction) for a deep theorem about provability or self-reference.       >       > Gödel diagonalization never uses this kind of naive unification, so the       > Prolog failure is irrelevant to logic.                            --       Copyright 2025 Olcott |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca