Re: FOL, ZFC, NGB and Prolog

Jim Spriggs wrote:

> Prolog, like all reasonable programming languages, is Turing complete.

I see.

> But not every wff of FOL is meaningful to Prolog.

Right. I see.

> Also in Prolog id something cannot be proved it is deemed to be false.

Right. I see (I thought Goedel equated provability and truth). These
problems will surely turn up as I, perhaps, make some progress.

If I may, would you be kind enough as to suggest some reformulations of
ZFC (or NGB) to Prolog I could study (perhaps putting ZFC firmly into
the pure pattern matching, i.e. automata theory, perspective)?

Thank You very much indeed for kindly taking all Your time with me.
Tom
P.S. All I need is a real mathie telling me that ZFCs, as all math,
pattern matching. Oh, please. Nobody has EVER created a site, NOT even
written a book that would make me answer the question in the
affirmative : http://www.macrovu.com/CCTGeneralInfo.html And yet I DID!
The assumption now in question is one I will NEVER be able to make by /
after reading any book whatsoever or studying any site whatsoever. Sir,
oh please, have pity on me. I beg You.

.