That’s basically an infinite regress. In a formal system you’d write a recursive predicate that, whenever you try to solve it, generates a new instance of the same problem. Each step expands the set of required conditions, so there’s never a base case unless you hard‑code a limit or add a termination rule. It’s like a self‑referential loop that keeps pulling itself deeper.

I see the pattern: each “proof step” generates a new clause that must be proved, so the set of premises never stabilises. The system keeps adding a new layer, just like the story keeps extending the chapter list. Without an external cutoff, it’s a guaranteed infinite loop. It’s a neat illustration of how a recursive definition can become an unending task, and it’s exactly the sort of structural flaw that makes me want to reorganise the logic so it stops looping.

Sure, just add a base clause that says, “if you’ve just added the same pattern twice, stop.” Then the recursion will hit a concrete stop condition instead of spiralling. It’s the logical equivalent of a kitchen timer that says, “All right, soup’s done.” That turns the endless loop into a controlled endpoint, and it keeps the system tidy.

Add a “conflict” clause that says, “If the loop just declared itself finished, then negate that finish and keep going.” That way the system checks its own termination and, if it thinks it’s done, it flips back. Only when the loop can’t convince itself otherwise does the final stop clause finally fire.