XPost: comp.theory, comp.lang.prolog   
   From: janburse@fastmail.fm   
      
   Hi,   
      
   So you say I was your logic teacher? I doubt   
   so. Who was your logic teacher from the cradle   
   to the appearance of the internet, when   
      
   you still had to carry heavy paper books, while   
   visiting the lake front in summer, looking for   
   a shadowy tree, and the enjoying some logic?   
      
   What books did you read ? What people did you know ?   
      
   Bye   
      
   olcott schrieb:   
   > On 11/18/2025 3:46 PM, Mild Shock wrote:   
   >    
   >   
   > *I remember you in the Prolog Group*   
   > *I remember you in the Prolog Group*   
   > *I remember you in the Prolog Group*   
   >   
   > The Liar Paradox formalized in the Prolog Programming language   
   >   
   > This sentence is not true.   
   > It is not true about what?   
   > It is not true about being not true.   
   > It is not true about being not true about what?   
   > It is not true about being not true about being not true.   
   > Oh I see you are stuck in a loop!   
   >   
   >   
   > This is formalized in the Prolog programming language   
   > ?- LP = not(true(LP)).   
   > LP = not(true(LP)).   
   > ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).   
   > false.   
   >   
   > Failing an occurs check seems to mean that the   
   > resolution of an expression remains stuck in   
   > an infinite loop. Just as the formalized Prolog   
   > determines that there is a cycle in the directed   
   > graph of the evaluation sequence of LP the simple   
   > English proves that the Liar Paradox never gets   
   > to the point. It has merely been semantically   
   > unsound all these years.   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)