1. Forum
  2. USENET
  3. comp.ai.philosophy

  • Re: Computation and Undecidability

    From olcott@polcott333@gmail.com to comp.theory,sci.logic,sci.lang,sci.math,comp.ai.philosophy on Sun Jan 11 12:12:42 2026
    From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

    On 1/11/2026 8:39 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
    On 11/01/2026 11:31, Richard Damon wrote:
    Not one person from any field or combination of
    fields has presented any formal resolution of
    the Liar Paradox that has been officially accepted.
    Did you know that?

    WRONG.

    What does "officially accepted" mean? His Majesty's crown court has
    found that the resolution is so with prejudice? His Majesty's memoirs
    "My Liar Paradox and I" has the resolution in it? His Majesty published
    a decree in The London Gazette?

    You have to pay 500% attention to the actual words Olcott actually uses.


    Basically a broad consensus of conventional wisdom
    agrees that the Liar Paradox is an open question
    that has never been resolved.
    --
    Copyright 2026 Olcott<br><br>

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

    This required establishing a new foundation<br>
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From olcott@polcott333@gmail.com to sci.logic,sci.math,comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy on Sun Jan 11 15:50:30 2026
    From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

    On 1/11/2026 3:28 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
    On 11/01/2026 18:12, olcott wrote:
    On 1/11/2026 8:39 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:

    What does "officially accepted" mean?

    Basically a broad consensus of conventional wisdom
    agrees that the Liar Paradox is an open question
    that has never been resolved.

    "Officially" doesn't refer to any consensus nor to any convention. It's basically the opposite of consensus and convention; that's the purpose
    of the word.

    If Princeton has a position statement on it, maybe that would do.


    There is a broad consensus that G||del's 1931 Incompleteness
    theorem is correct and that the Liar Paradox is unresolved.

    It easy to see that both are incorrect when using Proof
    Theoretic Semantics. Most experts in math and logic seem
    to simply not "believe in" Proof Theoretic Semantics because
    they are sheep and only follow the herd.
    --
    Copyright 2026 Olcott<br><br>

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

    This required establishing a new foundation<br>
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2