Re: The key undecidable instance that I know about --- Truth-bearers ONLY

On 2025-03-11 23:10:14 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 3/11/2025 5:50 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-03-11 03:23:51 +0000, olcott said:
>

>
It may seem that way if you fail to understand
Clocksin & Mellish explanation of
>
Most Prolog systems will allow you to
satisfy goals like:
   equal(X, X).
   ?- equal(foo(Y), Y).
>
that is, they will allow you to match a
term against an uninstantiated subterm of itself.
>
ON PAGE 3
https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/350789898_Prolog_detects_and_rejects_pathological_self_reference_in_the_Godel_sentence

>
That you can quote some text but don't say anything about it supports the
hypthesis that you don't understand the text you quoted.

>
*That you keep ignoring it is either stupid or dishonest*

 What is that "it" intended to mean?
 

    As a result, Y will stand forfoo(Y), which is
    foo(foo(Y)) (because of what Y stands for),
    which is foo(foo(foo(Y))), and so on. So Y ends
    up standing for some kind of infinite structure.

 Your quote is insufficient as the word "result" refers to someting
unquoted and does not mean anything without some context.
 

Anyway, the quote has no relevance to anything I said in the previous post.