XPost: comp.lang.prolog, comp.theory, sci.logic   
   XPost: sci.math   
   From: mikko.levanto@iki.fi   
      
   On 10/01/2026 18:11, olcott wrote:   
   > 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.”   
      
   That is about the proof-theoretic semantics, not about Prolog semantics.   
   Only Prolog semantics is defined in the standard.   
      
   --   
   Mikko   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)