• =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3a_Is_this_correct_Prolog=3f_=5b_Andr=c3=a9_is_proven_?= =

    From olcott@21:1/5 to All on Sun May 1 18:15:17 2022
    XPost: comp.theory, comp.lang.prolog

    On 5/1/2022 5:37 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
    On 2022-05-01 16:04, olcott wrote:
    On 5/1/2022 3:51 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:

    The only one being dishonest here is you as you keep snipping the
    substance of my post.

    Gödel claims there is a *close relationship* between The Liar and G.
    He most certainly does *not* claim that they are the same. (That one
    can construct similar proofs which bear a similar close relationship
    to other antinomies is hardly relevant since it is The Liar which is
    under discussion).

    There are two crucial differences between G and The Liar:

    (a) G does *not* assert its own unprovability whereas The Liar *does*
    assert its own falsity.

    (b) G is most definitely a truth-bearer even if The Liar is not.

    Your claim the Gödel's theorem is a 'category error' is predicated on
    the fact that you don't grasp (b) above. I'm not going to retype my
    explanation for this as I have already given it in a previous post.
    You're more than welcome to go back and read that post. Unless you
    actually have some comment on that explanation, there's no point
    repeating yourself.

    André


    14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
    undecidability proof

    and the Liar Paradox is and is an epistemological antinomy you lying
    bastard.

    Since you're clearly not planning on addressing any of my points, I
    think we're done.

    I'll leave you with a small multiple choice quiz: Are you

    (a) someone who was dropped on their head as a child.
    (b) suffering from foetal alcohol syndrome.
    (c) thick as a brick.
    (d) all of the above.

    André


    I just proved that you are a lying bastard. I can very easily forgive
    and forget, what I will not do is tolerate mistreatment


    14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar undecidability proof

    The Liar Paradox is an epistemological antinomy

    Translating this to a syllogism

    All X are a Y
    The LP is and X
    Therefore the LP is a Y.

    That you disagree with this makes you a lying bastard.

    --
    Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
    Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Sun May 1 19:21:16 2022
    XPost: comp.theory, comp.lang.prolog

    On 5/1/22 7:15 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 5/1/2022 5:37 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
    On 2022-05-01 16:04, olcott wrote:
    On 5/1/2022 3:51 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:

    The only one being dishonest here is you as you keep snipping the
    substance of my post.

    Gödel claims there is a *close relationship* between The Liar and G.
    He most certainly does *not* claim that they are the same. (That one
    can construct similar proofs which bear a similar close relationship
    to other antinomies is hardly relevant since it is The Liar which is
    under discussion).

    There are two crucial differences between G and The Liar:

    (a) G does *not* assert its own unprovability whereas The Liar
    *does* assert its own falsity.

    (b) G is most definitely a truth-bearer even if The Liar is not.

    Your claim the Gödel's theorem is a 'category error' is predicated
    on the fact that you don't grasp (b) above. I'm not going to retype
    my explanation for this as I have already given it in a previous
    post. You're more than welcome to go back and read that post. Unless
    you actually have some comment on that explanation, there's no point
    repeating yourself.

    André


    14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
    undecidability proof

    and the Liar Paradox is and is an epistemological antinomy you lying
    bastard.

    Since you're clearly not planning on addressing any of my points, I
    think we're done.

    I'll leave you with a small multiple choice quiz: Are you

    (a) someone who was dropped on their head as a child.
    (b) suffering from foetal alcohol syndrome.
    (c) thick as a brick.
    (d) all of the above.

    André


    I just proved that you are a lying bastard. I can very easily forgive
    and forget, what I will not do is tolerate mistreatment


    14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar undecidability proof

    The Liar Paradox is an epistemological antinomy

    Translating this to a syllogism

    All X are a Y
    The LP is and X
    Therefore the LP is a Y.

    That you disagree with this makes you a lying bastard.

    As Andre pointed out, when you look at the statement to see what the
    terms are, you just agreed with him and proved that YOU are the Liar.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From olcott@21:1/5 to All on Sun May 1 18:33:16 2022
    XPost: comp.theory, comp.lang.prolog

    On 5/1/2022 6:15 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
    On 2022-05-01 16:44, olcott wrote:
    On 5/1/2022 5:37 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
    On 2022-05-01 16:04, olcott wrote:
    On 5/1/2022 3:51 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:

    The only one being dishonest here is you as you keep snipping the
    substance of my post.

    Gödel claims there is a *close relationship* between The Liar and
    G. He most certainly does *not* claim that they are the same. (That
    one can construct similar proofs which bear a similar close
    relationship to other antinomies is hardly relevant since it is The
    Liar which is under discussion).

    There are two crucial differences between G and The Liar:

    (a) G does *not* assert its own unprovability whereas The Liar
    *does* assert its own falsity.

    (b) G is most definitely a truth-bearer even if The Liar is not.

    Your claim the Gödel's theorem is a 'category error' is predicated
    on the fact that you don't grasp (b) above. I'm not going to retype
    my explanation for this as I have already given it in a previous
    post. You're more than welcome to go back and read that post.
    Unless you actually have some comment on that explanation, there's
    no point repeating yourself.

    André


    14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
    undecidability proof

    and the Liar Paradox is and is an epistemological antinomy you lying
    bastard.

    Since you're clearly not planning on addressing any of my points, I
    think we're done.

    I'll leave you with a small multiple choice quiz: Are you

    (a) someone who was dropped on their head as a child.
    (b) suffering from foetal alcohol syndrome.
    (c) thick as a brick.
    (d) all of the above.

    André


    I just proved that you are a lying bastard. I can very easily forgive
    and forget, what I will not do is tolerate mistreatment


    14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
    undecidability proof

    The Liar Paradox is an epistemological antinomy

    Translating this to a syllogism

    All X are a Y
    The LP is and X
    Therefore the LP is a Y.

    That you disagree with this makes you a lying bastard.

    For christ's sake. You can't even see the irrelevance of the above.

    Let's consider what the X and Y are in the above:

    X would be 'Is an Antinomy'


    Not quite.
    X = is an epistemological antinomy

    Since Gödel was *already* talking about The Liar, Y is "Can be used to
    form an undecidability proof in a similar manner as Gödel has done with
    The Liar"

    So you've just proved that The Liar can be used to form a similar proof
    as the one Gödel forms using The Liar.

    Do you feel proud of yourself?

    What you keep ignoring, which were the points my posts were actually
    about was exactly *what* sort of relationship holds between The Liar and Gödel's G. It is *not* one of identity.


    Of course not nitwit, you know that I mean equivalence.

    What kind of stupid fool would believe that I mean that G and LP are one
    and the same thing? I know, I know, a jackass that wants to play head
    games.

    There is a close relationship between the Book of Genesis and the Epic
    of Gilgamesh.

    He says two different things about the Liar Paradox Jackass.
    (1) About the Liar Paradox in particular.
    (2) About the entire category that the Liar Paradox belongs:
    epistemological antinomies.

    If every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar undecidability proof then the liar paradox can be used for a similar undecidability proof.

    X = set of epistemological antinomies.
    Y = can be used for a similar undecidability proof.

    All X are Y
    The LP is an X
    Therefore the LP is a Y.

    You have known this all along you merely get sadistic pleasure by
    gaslighting me. That may be the only reason why anyone here (besides
    Malcolm) talks to me.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/better/health/what-gaslighting-how-do-you-know-if-it-s-happening-ncna890866


    Gilgamesh figures prominently in the Epic of Gilgamesh.

    Therefore Gilgamesh figures prominently in the Book of Genesis.

    According to the Epic of Gilgamesh, a savage can become civilized by
    having sex with a prostitute.

    Therefore the Book of Genesis advocates forcing the uncivilized to have
    sex with prostitutes.

    Do you see a problem with the above arguments? Saying there is a 'close relationship' between two things doesn't mean you can conclude
    *anything* about one based on the other. You need to consider exactly
    *what* the relationship actually is. What are the similarities and what
    are the differences? You insist on treating the two as if they were the
    same thing. They aren't, anymore than the Book of Genesis and the Epic
    of Gilgamesh are the same thing.

    André



    --
    Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

    "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
    Genius hits a target no one else can see."
    Arthur Schopenhauer

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcsOpIEcuIElzYWFr?=@21:1/5 to olcott on Sun May 1 17:44:33 2022
    XPost: comp.theory, comp.lang.prolog

    On 2022-05-01 17:33, olcott wrote:
    On 5/1/2022 6:15 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
    On 2022-05-01 16:44, olcott wrote:
    On 5/1/2022 5:37 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
    On 2022-05-01 16:04, olcott wrote:
    On 5/1/2022 3:51 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:

    The only one being dishonest here is you as you keep snipping the
    substance of my post.

    Gödel claims there is a *close relationship* between The Liar and >>>>>> G. He most certainly does *not* claim that they are the same.
    (That one can construct similar proofs which bear a similar close
    relationship to other antinomies is hardly relevant since it is
    The Liar which is under discussion).

    There are two crucial differences between G and The Liar:

    (a) G does *not* assert its own unprovability whereas The Liar
    *does* assert its own falsity.

    (b) G is most definitely a truth-bearer even if The Liar is not.

    Your claim the Gödel's theorem is a 'category error' is predicated >>>>>> on the fact that you don't grasp (b) above. I'm not going to
    retype my explanation for this as I have already given it in a
    previous post. You're more than welcome to go back and read that
    post. Unless you actually have some comment on that explanation,
    there's no point repeating yourself.

    André


    14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
    similar undecidability proof

    and the Liar Paradox is and is an epistemological antinomy you
    lying bastard.

    Since you're clearly not planning on addressing any of my points, I
    think we're done.

    I'll leave you with a small multiple choice quiz: Are you

    (a) someone who was dropped on their head as a child.
    (b) suffering from foetal alcohol syndrome.
    (c) thick as a brick.
    (d) all of the above.

    André


    I just proved that you are a lying bastard. I can very easily forgive
    and forget, what I will not do is tolerate mistreatment


    14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
    undecidability proof

    The Liar Paradox is an epistemological antinomy

    Translating this to a syllogism

    All X are a Y
    The LP is and X
    Therefore the LP is a Y.

    That you disagree with this makes you a lying bastard.

    For christ's sake. You can't even see the irrelevance of the above.

    Let's consider what the X and Y are in the above:

    X would be 'Is an Antinomy'


    Not quite.
    X = is an epistemological antinomy

    Since Gödel was *already* talking about The Liar, Y is "Can be used to
    form an undecidability proof in a similar manner as Gödel has done
    with The Liar"

    So you've just proved that The Liar can be used to form a similar
    proof as the one Gödel forms using The Liar.

    Do you feel proud of yourself?

    What you keep ignoring, which were the points my posts were actually
    about was exactly *what* sort of relationship holds between The Liar
    and Gödel's G. It is *not* one of identity.


    Of course not nitwit, you know that I mean equivalence.

    Equivalence with respect to *what*?

    If two things are equivalent but not identical, it means they are
    equivalent with respect to some things but not equivalent with respect
    to others.

    The entire point of my posts has been to clarify some senses in which
    the two are *not* equivalent. But instead of addressing that you keep
    trying to prove that The Liar is in the same class as The Liar.

    What kind of stupid fool would believe that I mean that G and LP are one
    and the same thing? I know, I know, a jackass that wants to play head
    games.

    There is a close relationship between the Book of Genesis and the Epic
    of Gilgamesh.

    He says two different things about the Liar Paradox Jackass.
    (1) About the Liar Paradox in particular.
    (2) About the entire category that the Liar Paradox belongs:
    epistemological antinomies.

    Yes, and if the LP is *not* equivalent to G with respect to X, then none
    of the analogous sentences based on other antinomies would be equivalent
    with respect to X either.

    If every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar undecidability proof then the liar paradox can be used for a similar undecidability proof.

    X = set of epistemological antinomies.
    Y = can be used for a similar undecidability proof.

    All X are Y
    The LP is an X
    Therefore the LP is a Y.

    Yes. The Liar and the Liar can be used for similar undecidability
    proofs. I have no idea what it is you hope to achieve by arguing for a
    truism.

    André


    --
    To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
    service.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From olcott@21:1/5 to All on Sun May 1 18:53:24 2022
    XPost: comp.theory, comp.lang.prolog

    On 5/1/2022 6:44 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
    On 2022-05-01 17:33, olcott wrote:
    On 5/1/2022 6:15 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
    On 2022-05-01 16:44, olcott wrote:
    On 5/1/2022 5:37 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
    On 2022-05-01 16:04, olcott wrote:
    On 5/1/2022 3:51 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:

    The only one being dishonest here is you as you keep snipping the >>>>>>> substance of my post.

    Gödel claims there is a *close relationship* between The Liar and >>>>>>> G. He most certainly does *not* claim that they are the same.
    (That one can construct similar proofs which bear a similar close >>>>>>> relationship to other antinomies is hardly relevant since it is
    The Liar which is under discussion).

    There are two crucial differences between G and The Liar:

    (a) G does *not* assert its own unprovability whereas The Liar
    *does* assert its own falsity.

    (b) G is most definitely a truth-bearer even if The Liar is not. >>>>>>>
    Your claim the Gödel's theorem is a 'category error' is
    predicated on the fact that you don't grasp (b) above. I'm not
    going to retype my explanation for this as I have already given
    it in a previous post. You're more than welcome to go back and
    read that post. Unless you actually have some comment on that
    explanation, there's no point repeating yourself.

    André


    14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
    similar undecidability proof

    and the Liar Paradox is and is an epistemological antinomy you
    lying bastard.

    Since you're clearly not planning on addressing any of my points, I
    think we're done.

    I'll leave you with a small multiple choice quiz: Are you

    (a) someone who was dropped on their head as a child.
    (b) suffering from foetal alcohol syndrome.
    (c) thick as a brick.
    (d) all of the above.

    André


    I just proved that you are a lying bastard. I can very easily
    forgive and forget, what I will not do is tolerate mistreatment


    14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
    undecidability proof

    The Liar Paradox is an epistemological antinomy

    Translating this to a syllogism

    All X are a Y
    The LP is and X
    Therefore the LP is a Y.

    That you disagree with this makes you a lying bastard.

    For christ's sake. You can't even see the irrelevance of the above.

    Let's consider what the X and Y are in the above:

    X would be 'Is an Antinomy'


    Not quite.
    X = is an epistemological antinomy

    Since Gödel was *already* talking about The Liar, Y is "Can be used
    to form an undecidability proof in a similar manner as Gödel has done
    with The Liar"

    So you've just proved that The Liar can be used to form a similar
    proof as the one Gödel forms using The Liar.

    Do you feel proud of yourself?

    What you keep ignoring, which were the points my posts were actually
    about was exactly *what* sort of relationship holds between The Liar
    and Gödel's G. It is *not* one of identity.


    Of course not nitwit, you know that I mean equivalence.

    Equivalence with respect to *what*?

    If two things are equivalent but not identical, it means they are
    equivalent with respect to some things but not equivalent with respect
    to others.

    The entire point of my posts has been to clarify some senses in which
    the two are *not* equivalent. But instead of addressing that you keep
    trying to prove that The Liar is in the same class as The Liar.

    What kind of stupid fool would believe that I mean that G and LP are
    one and the same thing? I know, I know, a jackass that wants to play
    head games.

    There is a close relationship between the Book of Genesis and the
    Epic of Gilgamesh.

    He says two different things about the Liar Paradox Jackass.
    (1) About the Liar Paradox in particular.
    (2) About the entire category that the Liar Paradox belongs:
    epistemological antinomies.

    Yes, and if the LP is *not* equivalent to G with respect to X, then none
    of the analogous sentences based on other antinomies would be equivalent
    with respect to X either.

    If every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
    undecidability proof then the liar paradox can be used for a similar
    undecidability proof.

    X = set of epistemological antinomies.
    Y = can be used for a similar undecidability proof.

    All X are Y
    The LP is an X
    Therefore the LP is a Y.

    Yes. The Liar and the Liar can be used for similar undecidability
    proofs. I have no idea what it is you hope to achieve by arguing for a truism.

    André



    See that I backed you into a corner to force you to quit lying.


    --
    Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

    "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
    Genius hits a target no one else can see."
    Arthur Schopenhauer

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From olcott@21:1/5 to Richard Damon on Sun May 1 19:56:28 2022
    XPost: comp.theory, comp.lang.prolog

    On 5/1/2022 6:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 5/1/22 7:15 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 5/1/2022 5:37 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
    On 2022-05-01 16:04, olcott wrote:
    On 5/1/2022 3:51 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:

    The only one being dishonest here is you as you keep snipping the
    substance of my post.

    Gödel claims there is a *close relationship* between The Liar and
    G. He most certainly does *not* claim that they are the same. (That
    one can construct similar proofs which bear a similar close
    relationship to other antinomies is hardly relevant since it is The
    Liar which is under discussion).

    There are two crucial differences between G and The Liar:

    (a) G does *not* assert its own unprovability whereas The Liar
    *does* assert its own falsity.

    (b) G is most definitely a truth-bearer even if The Liar is not.

    Your claim the Gödel's theorem is a 'category error' is predicated
    on the fact that you don't grasp (b) above. I'm not going to retype
    my explanation for this as I have already given it in a previous
    post. You're more than welcome to go back and read that post.
    Unless you actually have some comment on that explanation, there's
    no point repeating yourself.

    André


    14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
    undecidability proof

    and the Liar Paradox is and is an epistemological antinomy you lying
    bastard.

    Since you're clearly not planning on addressing any of my points, I
    think we're done.

    I'll leave you with a small multiple choice quiz: Are you

    (a) someone who was dropped on their head as a child.
    (b) suffering from foetal alcohol syndrome.
    (c) thick as a brick.
    (d) all of the above.

    André


    I just proved that you are a lying bastard. I can very easily forgive
    and forget, what I will not do is tolerate mistreatment


    14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
    undecidability proof

    The Liar Paradox is an epistemological antinomy

    Translating this to a syllogism

    All X are a Y
    The LP is and X
    Therefore the LP is a Y.

    That you disagree with this makes you a lying bastard.

    As Andre pointed out, when you look at the statement to see what the
    terms are, you just agreed with him and proved that YOU are the Liar.

    I backed him into a corner and forced him to stop lying:

    On 5/1/2022 6:44 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
    Yes. The Liar and the Liar can be used for similar undecidability
    proofs. I have no idea what it is you hope to achieve by arguing for a truism.

    Anyone that abuses me gets a metaphorical uppercut to the jaw.

    --
    Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
    Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)