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" |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca