XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.theory   
   XPost: comp.lang.prolog, comp.software-eng   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 2/2/2026 5:48 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 2/1/26 10:32 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> 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 it isn't given the C code of DD.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> HHH correctly determines that DD does not have   
   >> a well-founded justification tree within Proof   
   >> theoretic semantics.   
   >   
   > Which is a non-sense sentence as "Hating" isn't based on a justification   
   > tree.   
   >   
   > You are just trying to sound impressive by using fancy words which you   
   > just don't know what they mean,   
   >   
   > It seems you don't understand the very basics of programming or   
   > computation theory.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > But it isn't one, as it is just wrong.   
   >   
   > Your problem is you don't understand that thing are what they are.   
   >   
   > You are just proving how STUPID and IGNORANT you are, and that you are   
   > just a PATHOLOGICAL LIAR that just doesn't care what truth is, because,   
   > as a concept, it it just foreign to you.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> % 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   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> All five LLM systems agree with the above   
   >> this one is the most succinct agreement:   
   >>   
   >> *Halting Problem and Proof Theoretic Semantics*   
   >> https://philpapers.org/archive/OLCHPA.pdf   
   >>   
   >> https://philpapers.org/rec/OLCHPA   
   >>   
   >> https://www.researchgate.net/   
   >> publication/400341134_Halting_Problem_and_Proof_Theoretic_Semantics   
   >>   
   >   
      
   The above paper is one of 8 that explain   
   exactly how I am correct.   
      
   --   
   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)