home bbs files messages ]

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 261,809 of 262,912   
   olcott to Mikko   
   Re: A new foundation for correct reasoni   
   10 Dec 25 10:29:12   
   
   XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.prolog   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/10/2025 4:10 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   > olcott kirjoitti 8.12.2025 klo 21.12:   
   >> On 12/5/2025 4:49 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:   
   >>> On 04/12/2025 14:06, olcott wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> % 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"   
   >>>   
   >>> No. I think I showed in one of my recent posts (using definition   
   >>> extensions) that you need to formalise the mathematicians notion of   
   >>> "proof /in/ [system]" vis-a-vis "let" and its stronger sibling   
   >>> "suppose". That's a bigger job than you've done.   
   >>>   
   >>> I need a new quotation convention for referring to things whose name has   
   >>> an existing meaning in my U-language, I quoted "let" and "suppose" as if   
   >>> I were using their names; I mean to use the things themselves, but they   
   >>> have to be quoted in some way to distinguish the objects of mathematical   
   >>> language from the verbs of ordinary language without introducing such   
   >>> incidental new names as I would otherwise need.   
   >   
   >> Semantics tautologies that define finite strings in   
   >> terms of other finite strings to give the LHS its   
   >> semantic meaning on the basis of the RHS.   
   >   
   > You havn't given a single example of a smenatic tautology that can be   
   > interpreted as a definition nor a single example of defintion that is   
   > a semantic tautology. Perhaps it is possible if you define "semantic   
   > taultology" so that it needn't be anything like a tautology.   
   >   
      
    From my signature line:   
   "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"   
      
   Here is an example: "cats"  "animals"   
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott

              My 28 year goal has been to make
       "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
       reliably computable.

              This required establishing a new foundation
              --- 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