XPost: comp.lang.prolog, comp.theory, sci.logic   
   XPost: sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/10/2026 3:02 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   > On 09/01/2026 17:53, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 1/9/2026 4:03 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>> On 09/01/2026 01:28, olcott wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> Non-programmers and non-Prolog programmers only   
   >>>> understand Occurs‑check failure as “Prolog doesn’t like it”.   
   >>>   
   >>> I don't know about non-programmers but everyone who knows enough about   
   >>> programming to be able to read the definition of the predicate   
   >>> unify_with_occurs_check/2 can understand that its failure means that   
   >>> the programmer does not like a cyclic structure at that point.   
   >   
   >> That is so stupidly wrong that it must be dishonest.   
   >   
   > Prolog is what the standard says it is. You don't show any contradiction   
   > with the Prolog standard but dishonesstly say "dishonest" anyway.   
   >   
      
   I could not get a copy of the standard to prove   
   that I am correct its costs $600.   
      
   Here is the Clocksin & Mellish page   
   https://www.liarparadox.org/Clocksin&Mellish.pdf   
      
   “In proof-theoretic semantics, as reflected in   
   the well-founded semantics of logic programming,   
   the Liar is rejected as a non-well-founded goal.”   
      
      
   --   
   Copyright 2026 Olcott

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

   
      
   This required establishing a new foundation
   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)