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.
HHH correctly determines that DD does not have
a well-founded justification tree within Proof
theoretic semantics.
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.
% 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
--
Copyright 2026 Olcott<br><br>
My 28 year goal has been to make <br>
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"<br>
reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge.<br><br>
This required establishing a new foundation<br>
--- PyGate Linux v1.5.11
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)