Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.prolog > #14787

Yeah, we have another name! (Was: Fuzzy Testing is your Swiss Knife)

Show all headers | View raw

I like the vibe, clearing the mind of everything
existing has a touch of a mystic human being living
an eremitic solitary vocation on a far out mountain
top. Using the internet only to emit his wisdom,

but not to ingest the outer world, just as in
Thus Spoke Zarathustra (*). Another name for Fuzzy Testing,
if the outcome is not finding the needle in the haystack,
but rather producing quantitative outcomes is,

unless of course you were living in a submerged pineapple (**):

Monte Carlo methods
or Monte Carlo experiments, are a broad class of
computational algorithms that rely on repeated random
sampling to obtain numerical results
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Carlo_method

(*)
Also Sprach Zarathustra, Op. 30 - Strauss
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfe8tCcHnKY

(**)
Every Time Patrick Was Actually Smart
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siBRUuDxU1E

Mild Shock schrieb:
> 
>  > I see it as fuzzy testing of the community.
>  > It is certainly beneficial if used correctly
> 
> Fuzzy Testing goes also by the name QuickCheck.
> You can use Fuzzy Testing also for benchmarking.
> Mathematically it uses the Law of Large Numbers:
> 
> Law of large numbers
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers
> 
> Means you even don’t need a random generator
> with a programmable seed, so that a comparison
> involves the exact same random number sequences.
> 
> Just assume that your results have a variation σ.
> Then most likely the overall variation decreases
> proportionally to the number n of experiments,
> i.e. gets washed out:
> 
> VAR(X) = σ^2 / n
> 
> A third use case of Fuzzy Testing is to determine
> frequentist probabilities . Like when I determined
> that 25% of a variant of @kuniaki.mukai compare/3
> triples are not transitive.
> 
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> You can use Fuzzy Testing also for
>> benchmarking. Not only to find faults.
>> For example when I benchmark mercio/3 via
>> fuzzy/1, I find it doesn’t fare extremly bad:
>>
>> ?- time((between(1,100,_), mercio, fail; true)).
>> % 4,386,933 inferences, 0.375 CPU in 0.376 seconds (100% CPU, 11698488 
>> Lips)
>> true.
>>
>> And I am not using some of the optimization
>> that @kuniaki.mukai posted elsewhere and that
>> I posted 06.08.2025 on comp.lang.prolog. Fact is,
>> it only ca. 20% slower than SWI-Prologs compare/3:
>>
>> ?- time((between(1,100,_), swi, fail; true)).
>> % 3,786,880 inferences, 0.312 CPU in 0.325 seconds (96% CPU, 12118016 
>> Lips)
>> true.
>>
>> The test harness was:
>>
>> swi :-
>>      between(1,1000,_),
>>      fuzzy(X), fuzzy(Y),
>>      swi(_, X, Y), fail; true.
>>
>> mercio :-
>>      between(1,1000,_),
>>      fuzzy(X), fuzzy(Y),
>>      mercio(_, X, Y), fail; true.
>>
>> The difficulty was to find a 100% Prolog compare/3
>> that corresponds to SWI-Prolog. But you find a
>> fresh implementation in 100% Prolog using a Union
>> Find structure in the below:
>>
>> % swi(-Atom, +Term, +Term)
>> swi(C, X, Y) :-
>>     swi(X, Y, C, [], _).
>>
>> % swi( -Atom, +Term, +Term,+List, -List)
>> swi(C, X, Y, L, R) :- compound(X), compound(Y), !,
>>     sys_union_find(X, L, Z),
>>     sys_union_find(Y, L, T),
>>     swi_found(C, Z, T, L, R).
>> swi(X, Y, C, L, L) :- compare(C, X, Y).
>>
>> % swi_found(-Atom, +Term, +Term, +List, -List)
>> swi_found(C, X, Y, L, L) :-
>>     same_term(X, Y), !, C = (=).
>> swi_found(C, X, Y, _, _) :-
>>     functor(X, F, N),
>>     functor(Y, G, M),
>>     compare(D, N/F, M/G),
>>     D \== (=), !, C = D.
>> swi_found(C, X, Y, L, R) :-
>>     X =.. [_|P],
>>     Y =.. [_|Q],
>>     foldl(swi(C), P, Q, [X-Y|L], R).
>>
>> % sys_union_find(+Term, +List, -Term)
>> sys_union_find(X, L, T) :-
>>     member(Y-Z, L),
>>     same_term(X, Y), !,
>>     sys_union_find(Z, L, T).
>> sys_union_find(X, _, X).
> 

Back to comp.lang.prolog | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Mercio’s Algorithm for Rational Tree Compare in Prolog Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-08-04 02:52 +0200
  The Original Ganster (OG) of Gameification: IEEE 1044.1-1995 (Was: Mercio’s Algorithm for Rational Tree Compare in Prolog) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-08-04 13:48 +0200
    The Bitrot called Math Stack Exchange (Re: The Original Ganster (OG) of Gameification: IEEE 1044.1-1995) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-08-04 14:00 +0200
      I guess its back to Hopcroft and Karp.Re: The Bitrot called Math Stack Exchange) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-08-04 14:11 +0200
  Szpilrajn Theorem and Suzumura Consistency (Was: Mercio’s Algorithm for Rational Tree Compare in Prolog) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-08-06 01:50 +0200
    The good thing is we have at least Mercio’s Algorithm (Re: Szpilrajn Theorem and Suzumura Consistency) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-08-06 08:10 +0200
      Hopcroft and Karp’s is just Contraction (Was: The good thing is we have at least Mercio’s Algorithm) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-08-06 08:13 +0200
        Re: Hopcroft and Karp’s is just Contraction (Was: The good thing is we have at least Mercio’s Algorithm) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-08-06 08:23 +0200
      Should we use minimum_coa/3 ? (Was: The good thing is we have at least Mercio’s Algorithm) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-08-08 23:45 +0200
        Perfectly balanced , as all things should be! (Was: Should we use minimum_coa/3 ?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-08-08 23:49 +0200
  Mercios decidability was already attested in 2012 (Was: Mercio’s Algorithm for Rational Tree Compare in Prolog) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-08-14 20:26 +0200
    Performance of Mercio’s Total Order (Was: Mercios decidability was already attested in 2012) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-08-15 23:49 +0200
      Fuzzy Testing is your Swiss Knife (Re: Performance of Mercio’s Total Order) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-08-15 23:55 +0200
        Yeah, we have another name! (Was: Fuzzy Testing is your Swiss Knife) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-08-16 12:38 +0200
        Monte Carlo sampling the frontier version (Was: Yeah, we have another name!) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-08-16 12:42 +0200
        AI most hated by formal verification (Was: Fuzzy Testing is your Swiss Knife) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-26 17:02 +0100
  An NPU could give 1000x more LIPS (Was: Mercio’s Algorithm for Rational Tree Compare in Prolog) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-27 14:19 +0100
    Neural Network based dif/2 respectively (#\=)/2 (Re: An NPU could give 1000x more LIPS) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-27 14:51 +0100
      Zeus: A Language for Expressing Algorithms in Hardware (Re: Neural Network based dif/2 respectively (#\=)/2) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-27 15:03 +0100
        Googles TPU muscle in 2017 [Prolog Community is Sleepy Joe] (Re: Zeus: A Language for Expressing Algorithms in Hardware) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-27 15:23 +0100
    100% serious Giga Logical Inferences per Second (GLIPS) (Was: An NPU could give 1000x more LIPS) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-28 14:50 +0100
      The tables have turned: GigaLIP on the Laptop? (Re: 100% serious Giga Logical Inferences per Second (GLIPS) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-28 15:12 +0100

csiph-web