[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>>>>>>  >> what Y stands for), which is foo(foo(foo(Y))), and so on.   
   >>>>>>> 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.   
      
   In other words you admit you were lying about me.   
      
   --   
   Mikko   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)