[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>>>>> As I say non-terminating, thus never resolves to a truth value.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> As according to Prolog rules foo(Y) isn't a truth value for any Y   
   >>>>> the above is obviously just an attempt to deive with a distraction.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> That was a quote from the most definitive source   
   >>>> for the Prolog Language.   
   >>>   
   >>> As I already said, that source agrees with what I said above.   
   >>>   
   >>>> Prolog only has Facts and Rules thus the only   
   >>>> derivation is to a truth value.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> You just don't seem to understand:   
   >> ?- G = not(provable(F, G)).   
   >> G = not(provable(F, G)).   
   >> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(G, not(provable(F, G))).   
   >> false.   
   >>   
   >> The first statement creates a cyclic term, also called   
   >> a rational tree. The second executes logically sound   
   >> unification and thus fails.   
   >> https://www.swi-prolog.org/pldoc/man?predicate=unify_with_occurs_check/2   
   >   
   > Saying the same as I said does not support a claim of non-understanding.   
   >   
      
   It finally resolves the Liar Paradox   
   as not a truth bearer or proposition.   
      
   Also every other decision problem instance   
   with pathological self reference is isomorphic   
   to the Liar Paradox.   
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 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)