Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Apr 09, 2020 10:02 am
PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 6:43 pm
I updated the root post of this sequence possibly totally
refuting all of Quine's objections with three lines of Prolog.
*sigh*
You haven't refuted Quine. You have affirmed Quine.
You haven't defined the meaning of {MARRIED} anywhere.
If you go and define a
married() predicate, you will discover that
for all X, if bachelor(X) is false, then married(X) is true.
bachelor(X) <-> not Married(X)
But you already said that. Here:
Code: Select all
bachelor(X) :- \+ marital_status(X, married).
http://www.liarparadox.org/Meaning_Post ... p_1952.pdf
The way that meaning postulates work is that each one of them defines one atomic
unit of meaning (a single relation) between two otherwise meaningless finite strings.
We could add meaning postulates to {Married} up to the point where the system
would know divorce law of the state of California well enough to win a divorce case.
had_a(wedding, X) :- marital_status(X, married).
has_a(spouse, X) :- marital_status(X, married).
Quine goes on and on using some variation of the word synonymous 93 times claiming
that the synonymy between bachelor and unmarried cannot be defined. Since I did
define the synonymy between the otherwise totally meaningless finite strings: "bachelor"
and "unmarried", I proved Quine wrong.