Date: Feb 3, 2013 4:56 PM
Author: Graham Cooper
Subject: Re: This is False. 0/0 {x | x ~e x} e {x | x ~e x} A single Principle<br> to Resolve Several Paradoxes

On Feb 4, 7:18 am, Charlie-Boo <shymath...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 3, 4:03 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > On Feb 4, 3:01 am, Charlie-Boo <shymath...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 1, 3:35 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 2, 4:09 am, Charlie-Boo <shymath...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > There is a peculiar parallel between Semantic Paradoxes, Set Theory
> > > > > Paradoxes and ordinary formal Arithmetic.

>
> > > > > Consider the following 3 pairs of expressions in English, Set Theory
> > > > > and Mathematics:

>
> > > > > A
> > > > > This is false.
> > > > > This is true.

>
> > > > > B
> > > > > 1/0
> > > > > 0/0

>
> > > > > C
> > > > > {x | x ~e x} e {x | x ~e x}
> > > > > {x | x e x} e {x | x ~e x}
> > > > > {x | x ~e x} e {x | x e x}
> > > > > {x | x e x} e {x | x e x}

>
> > > > > A is the Liar Paradox, B is simple Arithmetic, and C is Russell?s
> > > > > Paradox.

>
> > > > This is Russells Paradox
>
> > > >  {x | x ~e x} e {x | x ~e x}
> > > >  <->
> > > > {x | x ~e x} ~e {x | x ~e x}

>
> > > > To make a consistent set theory the formula  { x | x ~e x }
> > > > must be flagged somehow.

>
> > > How do you define a wff - precisely?  That is the problem.  Frege was
> > > right, Russell was wrong, and all you need is an exact (formal)
> > > definition of wff.

>
> > > C-B
>
> > in the usual manner by Syntactic construction.
>
> > IF  X  is a WFF
> >   THEN  ALL(Y) X  is a WFF

>
> > and so on.
>
> The problem isn't with the connectives.  What can X be for starters -
> the most primitive wffs from which we build others?
>
> C-B
>
>
>



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_order_logic#Formation_rules



In PROLOG we use lowercase words for TERMS
and uppercase words for VARIABLES

ATOMIC PREDICATE

p( a1, a2, a3, ... an)


where ak is either a term or a variable.
p is also a term.

The connectives are superfluous, just use

if( X, Y )

not( X )

and( X, Y)

which are special predicates in that their arguments are predicates
themselves.

-----


For Quantifiers, all solved variables EXIST()
and I need a routine for SUBSET( var, set1, set2 )
which can do quantifier ALL(var).

A(x):D P(x)

<=>

{ x | x e D } C { x | P(x) }

Now all Predicate Calculus can be expressed in Atomic Predicates.
p(a,b,c)

Herc