XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.lang.prolog   
   XPost: sci.lang, comp.software-eng   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 2/1/2026 6:11 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 1/31/26 12:49 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> Source code of fully operational system   
   >> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c   
   >>   
   >> int DD()   
   >> {   
   >>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);   
   >>    if (Halt_Status)   
   >>      HERE: goto HERE;   
   >>    return Halt_Status;   
   >> }   
   >>   
   >> HHH simulates DD step-by-step according to   
   >> the semantics of the C programming language.   
   >   
   > IT CAN'T, as you have been told, as your above program, without the C   
   > CODE for HHH, has undefined behavior by the semantics of the C   
   > programming language.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> HHH correctly determines that DD does not have a well-founded   
   >> justification tree within Proof theoretic semantics.   
   >   
   > But only because your DD is not a well-formed program because you fail   
   > to include the code for all the program.   
   >   
      
   What the f-ck do you think this is? Sheep Dip ?   
   https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c   
      
   > And the reason its behavior isn't "well-founded" is because you failed   
   > to include the actual code for HHH. If you do, and that code happens to   
   > abort its simulation and returns non-halting, then it is well founded   
   > that DD will halt.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> When HHH is construed as a proof theoretic halting prover   
   >> HHH detects the pathological-self-reference of its input and   
   >> rejects DD as non-well-founded on this basis.   
   >   
   > Because your input is just garbage, because you never understood what   
   > you were talking abouyt,   
   >   
   > The problem is you think lying is valid logic.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> % This sentence is not true.   
   >> ?- LP = not(true(LP)).   
   >> LP = not(true(LP)).   
   >> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).   
   >> false.   
   >>   
   >> The Liar Paradox is formally rejected by Prolog   
   >> occurs_check for this same reason.   
   >>   
   >> occurs_check correctly determines that LP does not   
   >> have a well-founded justification tree within Proof   
   >> theoretic semantics.   
   >>   
   >   
   > Which is just irrelevent here, as DD doesn't "call" itself.   
   >   
   > Sorry, you are just proving you are just a pathological liar.   
      
      
   --   
   Copyright 2026 Olcott

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

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