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 262,105 of 262,912 |
| olcott to Richard Damon |
| Re: Carol's question + my Prolog are a c |
| 22 Dec 25 14:11:34 |
XPost: comp.theory, comp.lang.prolog, sci.math From: polcott333@gmail.com On 12/22/2025 1:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 12/22/25 2:46 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 12/22/2025 1:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 12/22/25 2:05 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 12/22/2025 12:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 12/22/25 1:35 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 12/22/2025 12:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 12/22/25 1:09 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 12/22/2025 12:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 12/22/25 12:59 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 12/22/2025 11:41 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 12/22/25 12:30 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/22/2025 11:23 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/22/25 12:19 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/22/2025 11:11 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/12/2025 18:39, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> % This sentence is not true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LP = not(true(LP)). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Prolog implementation's opinion is that it is true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> % This sentence is not true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)). >>>>>>>>>>>>>> LP = not(true(LP)). >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). >>>>>>>>>>>>>> false. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> By erasing the last line you seem to be dishonest >>>>>>>>>>>>>> was that your intention? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also you do not seem to understand exactly >>>>>>>>>>>>>> what unify_with_occurs_check() means even >>>>>>>>>>>>>> when I quoted Clocksin & Mellish on this. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It means that the input sentence didn't obey Prologs non- >>>>>>>>>>>>> recursvie nature. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> No that is not what it means. >>>>>>>>>>>> It means that the evaluation of LP is stuck >>>>>>>>>>>> in infinite recursion. LLMs are smart enough >>>>>>>>>>>> to immediately see this. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> BECAUSE Prolog, and the simplistic logic it uses, can't >>>>>>>>>>> handle that statement. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Counter-factual. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Prolog (and Olcott's Minimal Type Theory) detects >>>>>>>>>> cycles in the directed graph of the evaluation >>>>>>>>>> sequence of an expression. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But Cycles are not inherently a problem. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The same thing as stuck in an infinite loop. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But only because it uses a bad algorithm. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> This sentence is not true. >>>>>> It is not true about what? >>>>>> It is not true about being not true. >>>>>> It is not true about being not true about what? >>>>>> It is not true about being not true about being not true. >>>>>> Oh I see you are stuck in a loop! >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Again with to going off topic as a disraction. >>>>> >>>> >>>> It proves that the Liar Paradox does specify >>>> infinite recursion in a way that cannot be >>>> correctly denied. >>> >>> No, it only specifies infinite recursion in logic system that can't >>> actually handle recursive definitions. >>> >>> Since that is the only type of logic you understand, the problem is >>> on you. >>> >>>> >>>>> My sentence was L = true(L) or x or not(x). >>>>> >>>>> want to try again? >>>>> >>>>> it seems you really don't know how logic works becuase you refused >>>>> to learn it so you brainwashed yourself to avoid it. >>>> >>>> It has never been that I do not know how logic >>>> works. It has always been the my understanding >>>> of the philosophy of logic is better than most. >>> >>> Nope. You can't even do induction, as you have tried but couldn't >>> even come up with the basics. >>> >>> You have shown you don't understand the meaning of a "proof" >>> >>>> >>>> Everyone here accepts foundations as inherently >>>> infallible when indeed they are not. >>>> >>> >>> Which shows your fundamental error, as in Formal Logic, the >>> foundations ARE "infallible" in the logic system. >>> >> >> Even in the at least hypothetical case where >> its own definitions contradict each others. > > Then you can show that the definitions ARE self-contradictory. > > As was done with Naive Set Theory. > >> >>> You can possible show a given system is internally inconsistant, but >>> then you have to use just things defined in that system, and not try >>> to introduce new concepts as then the inconsistance can be cause by >>> your concepts not the system. >>> >> >> Undecidability is incoherent within computation. >> When requirements exceed fundamental capabilities >> then it is the requirements that are incorrect. > > Nope. You just don't understand the theory, because you can't > distinguish between truth and knowledge. > THIS IS A TRUISM When requirements exceed *fundamental capabilities* (of the model of computation) then it is the requirements that are incorrect. TMs only apply finite string transformations to their actual inputs, not the input of any other TM. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott |
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca