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

Groups > comp.lang.prolog > #14461 > unrolled thread

Prolog Education Group clueless about the AI Boom?

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.prolog

Contents

  Prolog Education Group clueless about the AI Boom? Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-03-03 14:18 +0100
    Re: Prolog Education Group clueless about the AI Boom? Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-03-03 14:20 +0100
      Salary Templates if you "Grok" ML / AI [PhDs Negotiate Salaries] (Re: Prolog Education Group clueless about the AI Boom?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-03-03 18:03 +0100
    ILP is still dreaming of higher order (Was: Prolog Education Group clueless about the AI Boom?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-03-07 23:58 +0100
      Re: ILP is still dreaming of higher order (Was: Prolog Education Group clueless about the AI Boom?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-03-08 00:00 +0100
    FYI: Philip Zucker’s Co-Egraphs (Was: Prolog Education Group clueless about the AI Boom?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-08-12 18:37 +0200
      Using Hopcroft & Karp (HK) everywhere (Was: FYI: Philip Zucker’s Co-Egraphs) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-08-14 12:31 +0200
        Confusing "decidable problem" and "complete algorithm" (Was: Using Hopcroft & Karp (HK) everywhere) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-08-14 14:31 +0200
          DFA algorithms in a Python library (Re: Confusing "decidable problem" and "complete algorithm") Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-08-14 15:14 +0200
        Static Variable Shunting in Dogelog Player (Was: Using Hopcroft & Karp (HK) everywhere) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-08-16 11:22 +0200
          Dynamic Variable Shunting in WebPL (Was: Static Variable Shunting in Dogelog Player) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-08-16 11:34 +0200
            SWI-Prolog is still the OG of GC (Was: Dynamic Variable Shunting in WebPL) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-08-16 11:46 +0200
              Cyclic Term Unification is Accounted (Was: SWI-Prolog is still the OG of GC) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-08-16 11:59 +0200
              WebPL is an interesting project (Was: SWI-Prolog is still the OG of GC) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-08-17 18:00 +0200
                Head to Head Race with Scryer Prolog (Was: WebPL is an interesting project) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-08-17 18:24 +0200
                  Does Variable Age make Sense? [Prolog Unification] (Was: Head to Head Race with Scryer Prolog) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-02-10 12:05 +0100
                    Type systems for non-deterministic concurrency [Amir Pnueli] (Was: Does Variable Age make Sense? [Prolog Unification]) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-07-20 12:20 +0200
                      Robin Milners fickle gives non-determinism in practice [Parallel π-WAM] (Was: Type systems for non-deterministic concurrency [Amir Pnueli]) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-07-20 12:34 +0200
    Sleepy Joe and the Poor South (Local AI Emacs Mode) (Re: Prolog Education Group clueless about the AI Boom?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-12 12:59 +0100
      Beyond Sleepy Joe around the World (Was: Sleepy Joe and the Poor South (Local AI Emacs Mode)) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-12 13:12 +0100
    GENESIS MISSION: Loosing it over Deep Pokets [Business wants A-Life] (Was: Prolog Education Group clueless about the AI Boom?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-26 18:07 +0100
    Vanilla Prolog: semi-decidable =\= decidable (Re: Prolog Education Group clueless about the AI Boom?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-03-14 20:40 +0100
      Its on the Internet, so it must be true? (Was: Vanilla Prolog: semi-decidable =\= decidable) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-03-16 11:01 +0100
      Hack + Computed Goto = Leightweigh C_OR (Was: Vanilla Prolog: semi-decidable =\= decidable) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-07-04 16:58 +0200
        The stack and choice points as an after match (Re: Hack + Computed Goto = Leightweigh C_OR) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-07-04 17:07 +0200
          Introduction to AI Accelerator Prolog [π-WAM of Dogelog] (Was: The stack and choice points as an after match) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-07-17 10:49 +0200
            Not praying to the god of lambda calculus [π beats α] (Was: Introduction to AI Accelerator Prolog [π-WAM of Dogelog]) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-07-17 11:13 +0200
            pi in pi-WAM refers to pi-calculus (Re: Introduction to AI Accelerator Prolog [π-WAM of Dogelog]) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-07-18 01:22 +0200
              Milners fickle() in pi-WAM [For fun and profit] (Re: pi in pi-WAM refers to pi-calculus (Re: Introduction to AI Accelerator Prolog [π-WAM of Dogelog]) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-07-18 01:49 +0200
                Robin Milners pi calculus is typeless (Re: Milners fickle() in pi-WAM [For fun and profit]) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-07-18 11:00 +0200
                  Can the Church Turing hypotheses be refuted? [TLo @ FOM] (Re: Robin Milners pi calculus is typeless) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-07-18 11:10 +0200
            Accelerate Lean! From Theorem 3.11 to Corollary 3.12 [ZMC] (Was: Introduction to AI Accelerator Prolog [π-WAM of Dogelog]) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-07-19 16:06 +0200
              ANN: Library Pegg, for π-E-graphs [Not EXWM] (Was: Accelerate Lean! From Theorem 3.11 to Corollary 3.12 [ZMC]) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-07-19 16:21 +0200

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#15051 — GENESIS MISSION: Loosing it over Deep Pokets [Business wants A-Life] (Was: Prolog Education Group clueless about the AI Boom?)

Hi,

Ha Ha, USA is shitting once again its pants:

New age of AI‑accelerated innovation and discovery
that can solve the most challenging problems of this century.
Executive Orders November 24, 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQ92hV1R4TA

Governement, acadamenia and standard bodies
are loosing it over Deep Pokets. They will
be the next savages in a land of humanoid

robots and techno lords. This is just the
after math of neo capitalism privatization
in and out. So most of the Deep Pokets are

even governement, academia fundeded. But the
humanoid robots will make the Deep Pokets
even more deeper.

Bye

P.S.: So whats the blind spot in this troubled
times. Mentifex gave a glimps:

// aLife() (artificial life) is the Robot AI Mind main loop.
function aLife() { // ATM 27oct2002; or your ID & date.
    Security(); // For human control and operation of the AI.
    Sensorium(); // Audition; other human-robot input senses.
    Emotion(); // Quasi-physiological influence upon thought.
    Think(); // Syntax and vocabulary of natural languages.
    Volition(); // Contemplative selection of motor options.
    Motorium(); // Robotic activation of motor initiatives.
    if (life == true) { // If the AI has not met with misadventure,
       fyi = "aLife: calling itself; t = "+t+"; rejuvenations ="+rjc;
       Voice(); // Display the Voice:brain "For Your Information".
       TID=window.setTimeout("aLife();",rsvp); // Call aLife again. }
      // End of quasi-loop time-delay of rsvp-value milliseconds. }
    // End of one pass through the aLife Mind that repeats itself.
https://mind.sourceforge.net/Mind.html

Thats what business wants, this A-Life. And
20-30 years a ago it was a blooming research
field and you could toy around with genetic

programming on a commodore C64. Now genetic programming
is done in simulated 3D worlds, and Elon Optimus will
soon be employed as hotel personell in the UAV.

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Concerning this boring nonsense:
> 
> https://book.simply-logical.space/src/text/2_part_ii/5.3.html#
> 
> Funny idea that anybody would be interested just now in
> the year 2025 in things like teaching breadth first
> search versus depth first search, or even be “mystified”
> by such stuff. Its extremly trivial stuff:
> 
> Insert your favorite tree traversal pictures here.
> 
> Its even not artificial intelligence neither has anything
> to do with mathematical logic, rather belongs to computer
> science and discrete mathematics which you have in
> 1st year university
> 
> courses, making it moot to call it “simply logical”. It
> reminds me of the idea of teaching how wax candles work
> to dumb down students, when just light bulbs have been
> invented. If this is the outcome
> 
> of the Prolog Education Group 2.0, then good night.
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15489 — Vanilla Prolog: semi-decidable =\= decidable (Re: Prolog Education Group clueless about the AI Boom?)

Hi,

Somebody just changed the Vanilla Prolog
meta interpreter from:

solve(true) :- !.
solve((A,B)) :- !, solve(A), solve(B).
solve(H) :- clause(H, B), solve(B).

Into a cycle checking interpreter. It makes
certain Datalog programs and queries complete,
but it doesn't make Horn clauses complete:

solve(A) :- solve(A, []).

solve(true, _) :- !.
solve((A,B), L) :- !, solve(A, L), solve(B, L).
solve(A, L) :- member(B, L), A =@= B, !, fail.
solve(H, L) :- clause(H, B), solve(B, [H|L]).

Bye

P.S.: Here is a proof for Datalog:

Since Datalog has only constants and variables,
no function symbols at all, there are only finitely
many literals at runtime modulo (=@=)/2.

Q.E.D.

dart200 schrieb:
 > The following claim from p246 of Turing’s seminal paper On Computable 
Numbers is a fallacy:
 >
 > /the problem of enumerating computable sequences is equivalent to the 
problem of finding out whether a given number is the D.N of a circle- 
free machine, and we have no general process for doing this in a finite 
number of steps/
 >
 > For any given computable sequence, there are _infinite_ circle-free 
machines which compute that particular sequence. Not only can various 
machines differ significantly in the specific steps to produce the same 
output, machines can be changed in superficial ways that do not 
meaningfully affect the steps of computation, akin to modern no-op 
statements or unreachable code
 >
 > The problem of enumerating computable sequences, however, only 
depends on successfully identifying _one_ circle-free machine that 
computes any given computable sequences. While identifying more than one 
can certainly be done, it is _not_ a requirement for enumerating 
computable sequences, as _one_ machine computing a sequence /suffices to 
output any and all digits of that sequence/
 >
 > The problem of enumerating computable sequences is therefore _not_ 
actually equivalent to a _general process_ of enumerating circle-free 
machines, as there is no need to identify all circle-free machines which 
compute any given computable sequence
 >
 > Said problem is only equivalent to a _limited process_ of enumerating 
circle-free machines. The machine which identifies circle-free machines 
only needs the limited power of determining _at least one_ circle-free 
machine for any given computable sequence, _not all_ machines for any 
given computable sequence
 >
 > Because of this fallacy, the proof found on the following p247, where 
an ill-defined machine 𝓗 (which attempts and fails to compute the 
direct diagonal β’) is found to be undecidable in respect to circle-free 
decider 𝓓; does not then prove an impossibility for enumerating 
computable sequences. As the problem of enumerating /all circle-free 
machines/ is _not_ equivalent to that of enumerating /just computable 
sequences/
 >
 >

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Concerning this boring nonsense:
> 
> https://book.simply-logical.space/src/text/2_part_ii/5.3.html#
> 
> Funny idea that anybody would be interested just now in
> the year 2025 in things like teaching breadth first
> search versus depth first search, or even be “mystified”
> by such stuff. Its extremly trivial stuff:
> 
> Insert your favorite tree traversal pictures here.
> 
> Its even not artificial intelligence neither has anything
> to do with mathematical logic, rather belongs to computer
> science and discrete mathematics which you have in
> 1st year university
> 
> courses, making it moot to call it “simply logical”. It
> reminds me of the idea of teaching how wax candles work
> to dumb down students, when just light bulbs have been
> invented. If this is the outcome
> 
> of the Prolog Education Group 2.0, then good night.
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15491 — Its on the Internet, so it must be true? (Was: Vanilla Prolog: semi-decidable =\= decidable)

Hi,

For Datalog solve/2 will indeed always terminate.
But it will be also utterly disappointing for
left recursive problems:

path(X, Y) :- path(X, Z), edge(Z, Y).
path(X, Y) :- edge(X, Y).

With traces/checking for cycles but without some
fixpoint iteration, it would only compute the
extension path = edge.

What is the cure to this desease, if one wants to
keep the body left to right computation sequencing?
Well OLD resolution is one classic:

OLD Resolution with Tabulation
Sato et al. - July 1986
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220986525

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> Somebody just changed the Vanilla Prolog
> meta interpreter from:
> 
> solve(true) :- !.
> solve((A,B)) :- !, solve(A), solve(B).
> solve(H) :- clause(H, B), solve(B).
> 
> Into a cycle checking interpreter. It makes
> certain Datalog programs and queries complete,
> but it doesn't make Horn clauses complete:
> 
> solve(A) :- solve(A, []).
> 
> solve(true, _) :- !.
> solve((A,B), L) :- !, solve(A, L), solve(B, L).
> solve(A, L) :- member(B, L), A =@= B, !, fail.
> solve(H, L) :- clause(H, B), solve(B, [H|L]).
> 
> Bye
> 
> P.S.: Here is a proof for Datalog:
> 
> Since Datalog has only constants and variables,
> no function symbols at all, there are only finitely
> many literals at runtime modulo (=@=)/2.
> 
> Q.E.D.
> 
> dart200 schrieb:
>  > The following claim from p246 of Turing’s seminal paper On Computable 
> Numbers is a fallacy:
>  >
>  > /the problem of enumerating computable sequences is equivalent to the 
> problem of finding out whether a given number is the D.N of a circle- 
> free machine, and we have no general process for doing this in a finite 
> number of steps/
>  >
>  > For any given computable sequence, there are _infinite_ circle-free 
> machines which compute that particular sequence. Not only can various 
> machines differ significantly in the specific steps to produce the same 
> output, machines can be changed in superficial ways that do not 
> meaningfully affect the steps of computation, akin to modern no-op 
> statements or unreachable code
>  >
>  > The problem of enumerating computable sequences, however, only 
> depends on successfully identifying _one_ circle-free machine that 
> computes any given computable sequences. While identifying more than one 
> can certainly be done, it is _not_ a requirement for enumerating 
> computable sequences, as _one_ machine computing a sequence /suffices to 
> output any and all digits of that sequence/
>  >
>  > The problem of enumerating computable sequences is therefore _not_ 
> actually equivalent to a _general process_ of enumerating circle-free 
> machines, as there is no need to identify all circle-free machines which 
> compute any given computable sequence
>  >
>  > Said problem is only equivalent to a _limited process_ of enumerating 
> circle-free machines. The machine which identifies circle-free machines 
> only needs the limited power of determining _at least one_ circle-free 
> machine for any given computable sequence, _not all_ machines for any 
> given computable sequence
>  >
>  > Because of this fallacy, the proof found on the following p247, where 
> an ill-defined machine 𝓗 (which attempts and fails to compute the 
> direct diagonal β’) is found to be undecidable in respect to circle-free 
> decider 𝓓; does not then prove an impossibility for enumerating 
> computable sequences. As the problem of enumerating /all circle-free 
> machines/ is _not_ equivalent to that of enumerating /just computable 
> sequences/
>  >
>  >
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Concerning this boring nonsense:
>>
>> https://book.simply-logical.space/src/text/2_part_ii/5.3.html#
>>
>> Funny idea that anybody would be interested just now in
>> the year 2025 in things like teaching breadth first
>> search versus depth first search, or even be “mystified”
>> by such stuff. Its extremly trivial stuff:
>>
>> Insert your favorite tree traversal pictures here.
>>
>> Its even not artificial intelligence neither has anything
>> to do with mathematical logic, rather belongs to computer
>> science and discrete mathematics which you have in
>> 1st year university
>>
>> courses, making it moot to call it “simply logical”. It
>> reminds me of the idea of teaching how wax candles work
>> to dumb down students, when just light bulbs have been
>> invented. If this is the outcome
>>
>> of the Prolog Education Group 2.0, then good night.
>>
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15604 — Hack + Computed Goto = Leightweigh C_OR (Was: Vanilla Prolog: semi-decidable =\= decidable)

Hi,

pi-WAM is a nice challenge, since its aim is to go
even blow the instruction set of SWI-Prolog,
while only using a Hack variant as instruction

stream. But what is Hack? Well Hack seems to be
the missing legacy of Niclaus Wirths PL0. The
Hack (machine .asm) and Jack (highlevel compiler

generating .vm which can be converted to .asm)
combo makes even the famous Crafting Interpreters
/Lox by Bob Nystrom redundant:

Nand to Tetris courses are taught at 400+
universities, high schools, and bootcamps. The
students who take them range from high
schoolers to Ph.D. students to
https://www.nand2tetris.org/

But digging deaper in Hack, it has no functions
pointers so objects don't use virtual tables.
But what will pi-WAM need and that is not yet

in Hack? Given that my pi-WAM doesn't want a stack
nor a choice point lists? Currently there is the
idea to add a computed goto and that it can

cover a more lightweight C_OR as known from
SWI-Prolog, that would have the C_OR branches
maybe restricted to have no outside

clause calls? Lets see. Not yet sure.

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> Somebody just changed the Vanilla Prolog
> meta interpreter from:
> 
> solve(true) :- !.
> solve((A,B)) :- !, solve(A), solve(B).
> solve(H) :- clause(H, B), solve(B).
> 
> Into a cycle checking interpreter. It makes
> certain Datalog programs and queries complete,
> but it doesn't make Horn clauses complete:
> 
> solve(A) :- solve(A, []).
> 
> solve(true, _) :- !.
> solve((A,B), L) :- !, solve(A, L), solve(B, L).
> solve(A, L) :- member(B, L), A =@= B, !, fail.
> solve(H, L) :- clause(H, B), solve(B, [H|L]).
> 
> Bye
> 
> P.S.: Here is a proof for Datalog:
> 
> Since Datalog has only constants and variables,
> no function symbols at all, there are only finitely
> many literals at runtime modulo (=@=)/2.
> 
> Q.E.D.
> 
> dart200 schrieb:
>  > The following claim from p246 of Turing’s seminal paper On Computable 
> Numbers is a fallacy:
>  >
>  > /the problem of enumerating computable sequences is equivalent to the 
> problem of finding out whether a given number is the D.N of a circle- 
> free machine, and we have no general process for doing this in a finite 
> number of steps/
>  >
>  > For any given computable sequence, there are _infinite_ circle-free 
> machines which compute that particular sequence. Not only can various 
> machines differ significantly in the specific steps to produce the same 
> output, machines can be changed in superficial ways that do not 
> meaningfully affect the steps of computation, akin to modern no-op 
> statements or unreachable code
>  >
>  > The problem of enumerating computable sequences, however, only 
> depends on successfully identifying _one_ circle-free machine that 
> computes any given computable sequences. While identifying more than one 
> can certainly be done, it is _not_ a requirement for enumerating 
> computable sequences, as _one_ machine computing a sequence /suffices to 
> output any and all digits of that sequence/
>  >
>  > The problem of enumerating computable sequences is therefore _not_ 
> actually equivalent to a _general process_ of enumerating circle-free 
> machines, as there is no need to identify all circle-free machines which 
> compute any given computable sequence
>  >
>  > Said problem is only equivalent to a _limited process_ of enumerating 
> circle-free machines. The machine which identifies circle-free machines 
> only needs the limited power of determining _at least one_ circle-free 
> machine for any given computable sequence, _not all_ machines for any 
> given computable sequence
>  >
>  > Because of this fallacy, the proof found on the following p247, where 
> an ill-defined machine 𝓗 (which attempts and fails to compute the 
> direct diagonal β’) is found to be undecidable in respect to circle-free 
> decider 𝓓; does not then prove an impossibility for enumerating 
> computable sequences. As the problem of enumerating /all circle-free 
> machines/ is _not_ equivalent to that of enumerating /just computable 
> sequences/
>  >
>  >
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Concerning this boring nonsense:
>>
>> https://book.simply-logical.space/src/text/2_part_ii/5.3.html#
>>
>> Funny idea that anybody would be interested just now in
>> the year 2025 in things like teaching breadth first
>> search versus depth first search, or even be “mystified”
>> by such stuff. Its extremly trivial stuff:
>>
>> Insert your favorite tree traversal pictures here.
>>
>> Its even not artificial intelligence neither has anything
>> to do with mathematical logic, rather belongs to computer
>> science and discrete mathematics which you have in
>> 1st year university
>>
>> courses, making it moot to call it “simply logical”. It
>> reminds me of the idea of teaching how wax candles work
>> to dumb down students, when just light bulbs have been
>> invented. If this is the outcome
>>
>> of the Prolog Education Group 2.0, then good night.
>>
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15605 — The stack and choice points as an after match (Re: Hack + Computed Goto = Leightweigh C_OR)

Hi,

So the idea is to cover backtracking without
stack and choice points, only with registers.
So at the compute goto will use an instruction

that stores the PC target into a register,
a new instruction for Hack:

    REG = PC + REL

And then the jump will be, again a new
instruction for Hack:

    PC = REG

If we squeeze the lemon and compile as much
with that, we will only find that it breaks for
calling recursive predicates that can use

arbitary registers and choice points. But we
could maybe add stack and choice point as an
after match, instead of the classical WAM design

that starts with stack and choice points!

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> pi-WAM is a nice challenge, since its aim is to go
> even blow the instruction set of SWI-Prolog,
> while only using a Hack variant as instruction
> 
> stream. But what is Hack? Well Hack seems to be
> the missing legacy of Niclaus Wirths PL0. The
> Hack (machine .asm) and Jack (highlevel compiler
> 
> generating .vm which can be converted to .asm)
> combo makes even the famous Crafting Interpreters
> /Lox by Bob Nystrom redundant:
> 
> Nand to Tetris courses are taught at 400+
> universities, high schools, and bootcamps. The
> students who take them range from high
> schoolers to Ph.D. students to
> https://www.nand2tetris.org/
> 
> But digging deaper in Hack, it has no functions
> pointers so objects don't use virtual tables.
> But what will pi-WAM need and that is not yet
> 
> in Hack? Given that my pi-WAM doesn't want a stack
> nor a choice point lists? Currently there is the
> idea to add a computed goto and that it can
> 
> cover a more lightweight C_OR as known from
> SWI-Prolog, that would have the C_OR branches
> maybe restricted to have no outside
> 
> clause calls? Lets see. Not yet sure.
> 
> Bye

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15645 — Introduction to AI Accelerator Prolog [π-WAM of Dogelog] (Was: The stack and choice points as an after match)

Hi,

Maybe I should write a blog post, titled
Introduction to AI Accelerator Prolog:

- specialized jobs π-WAM (currently integerish stuff)
- π-WAM uses no atomics, only comms
- π-WAM uses warp, 30-40% more speed
- π-WAM runs on GPU and CPU
- π-WAM runs from within JavaScript, Python and Java

Feels like reinventing FGCS concurrent
logic programming.

LoL

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> So the idea is to cover backtracking without
> stack and choice points, only with registers.
> So at the compute goto will use an instruction
> 
> that stores the PC target into a register,
> a new instruction for Hack:
> 
>     REG = PC + REL
> 
> And then the jump will be, again a new
> instruction for Hack:
> 
>     PC = REG
> 
> If we squeeze the lemon and compile as much
> with that, we will only find that it breaks for
> calling recursive predicates that can use
> 
> arbitary registers and choice points. But we
> could maybe add stack and choice point as an
> after match, instead of the classical WAM design
> 
> that starts with stack and choice points!
> 
> Bye
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> pi-WAM is a nice challenge, since its aim is to go
>> even blow the instruction set of SWI-Prolog,
>> while only using a Hack variant as instruction
>>
>> stream. But what is Hack? Well Hack seems to be
>> the missing legacy of Niclaus Wirths PL0. The
>> Hack (machine .asm) and Jack (highlevel compiler
>>
>> generating .vm which can be converted to .asm)
>> combo makes even the famous Crafting Interpreters
>> /Lox by Bob Nystrom redundant:
>>
>> Nand to Tetris courses are taught at 400+
>> universities, high schools, and bootcamps. The
>> students who take them range from high
>> schoolers to Ph.D. students to
>> https://www.nand2tetris.org/
>>
>> But digging deaper in Hack, it has no functions
>> pointers so objects don't use virtual tables.
>> But what will pi-WAM need and that is not yet
>>
>> in Hack? Given that my pi-WAM doesn't want a stack
>> nor a choice point lists? Currently there is the
>> idea to add a computed goto and that it can
>>
>> cover a more lightweight C_OR as known from
>> SWI-Prolog, that would have the C_OR branches
>> maybe restricted to have no outside
>>
>> clause calls? Lets see. Not yet sure.
>>
>> Bye

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15646 — Not praying to the god of lambda calculus [π beats α] (Was: Introduction to AI Accelerator Prolog [π-WAM of Dogelog])

Hi,

Somebody tasked the logic programming community
to make an α-Prolog, i.e. have some alpha
conversion whatever builtin, plus maybe nominal
logic fresh variables whatever.

But who reads such nonsense in 2026:

Lifting E-Graphs: A Function Isn't a Constant
https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.22734

So you see where I am aiming with π-WAM, surely
not α-Prolog . I wouldn't care less about  α-Prolog.
π is more fun than α, and working on WAM is more
fun then creating some silly prototype of a

REPL of a homunkulus of a Prolog. π beats α:

- α = abstract, academic, awkward
- π = parallelism, performance, practical

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> Maybe I should write a blog post, titled
> Introduction to AI Accelerator Prolog:
> 
> - specialized jobs π-WAM (currently integerish stuff)
> - π-WAM uses no atomics, only comms
> - π-WAM uses warp, 30-40% more speed
> - π-WAM runs on GPU and CPU
> - π-WAM runs from within JavaScript, Python and Java
> 
> Feels like reinventing FGCS concurrent
> logic programming.
> 
> LoL
> 
> Bye
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> So the idea is to cover backtracking without
>> stack and choice points, only with registers.
>> So at the compute goto will use an instruction
>>
>> that stores the PC target into a register,
>> a new instruction for Hack:
>>
>>     REG = PC + REL
>>
>> And then the jump will be, again a new
>> instruction for Hack:
>>
>>     PC = REG
>>
>> If we squeeze the lemon and compile as much
>> with that, we will only find that it breaks for
>> calling recursive predicates that can use
>>
>> arbitary registers and choice points. But we
>> could maybe add stack and choice point as an
>> after match, instead of the classical WAM design
>>
>> that starts with stack and choice points!
>>
>> Bye
>>
>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> pi-WAM is a nice challenge, since its aim is to go
>>> even blow the instruction set of SWI-Prolog,
>>> while only using a Hack variant as instruction
>>>
>>> stream. But what is Hack? Well Hack seems to be
>>> the missing legacy of Niclaus Wirths PL0. The
>>> Hack (machine .asm) and Jack (highlevel compiler
>>>
>>> generating .vm which can be converted to .asm)
>>> combo makes even the famous Crafting Interpreters
>>> /Lox by Bob Nystrom redundant:
>>>
>>> Nand to Tetris courses are taught at 400+
>>> universities, high schools, and bootcamps. The
>>> students who take them range from high
>>> schoolers to Ph.D. students to
>>> https://www.nand2tetris.org/
>>>
>>> But digging deaper in Hack, it has no functions
>>> pointers so objects don't use virtual tables.
>>> But what will pi-WAM need and that is not yet
>>>
>>> in Hack? Given that my pi-WAM doesn't want a stack
>>> nor a choice point lists? Currently there is the
>>> idea to add a computed goto and that it can
>>>
>>> cover a more lightweight C_OR as known from
>>> SWI-Prolog, that would have the C_OR branches
>>> maybe restricted to have no outside
>>>
>>> clause calls? Lets see. Not yet sure.
>>>
>>> Bye
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15647 — pi in pi-WAM refers to pi-calculus (Re: Introduction to AI Accelerator Prolog [π-WAM of Dogelog])

Hi,

The pi in pi-WAM refers to pi-calculus.
pi-calculus has not atomic(i32).

The π-calculus is a universal model of computation.
This was first observed by Milner in his paper
"Functions as Processes",[10] in which he presents
two encodings of the lambda-calculus in the π-calculus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%A0-calculus

LoL

Bye

Chris M. Thomasson schrieb:
 > On 7/17/2026 2:16 AM, Mild Shock wrote:
 >> Hi,
 >>
 >> Maybe I should write a blog post, titled
 >> Introduction to AI Accelerator Prolog:
 >>
 >> - specialized jobs π-WAM (currently integerish stuff)
 >> - π-WAM uses no atomics, only comms
 >> - π-WAM uses warp, 30-40% more speed
 >> - π-WAM runs on GPU and CPU
 >> - π-WAM runs from within JavaScript, Python and Java
 >
 > [...]
 >
 > No atomic fetch-and-add?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15648 — Milners fickle() in pi-WAM [For fun and profit] (Re: pi in pi-WAM refers to pi-calculus (Re: Introduction to AI Accelerator Prolog [π-WAM of Dogelog])

Hi,

Milners fickle() is here:

Functions as processes
https://inria.hal.science/inria-00075405

After Theorem 7.7:

So in P we construct a fickle ‘function’ which
behaves differently on successive calls.

Here is a pi-WAM run in Dogelog Player, using the emulator:

Dogelog Spieler 2.2.4, Oracle Corporation, Java 26.0.1
(c) 1985-2026, XLOG Technologies AG, Schweiz
?- ensure_loaded(library(edge/brainfog)).
true.
?- emulate((between(1,2,Y),in(X),out(Y))).
: 0
1
: 0
2
fail.

The emulator is portable, can be run every Prolog
system. But it is only 1 process. So its better
to use the n process backends for CPU or GPU.

Which are less portable, not anymore pure Prolog,
a great deal of thread start and join infrastructure
as well, and a native Hack VM.

The comms across process is not yet implemented.
But the in/1 and out/1 instructions are already
there. But they currently go to stdin/stdout.

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> The pi in pi-WAM refers to pi-calculus.
> pi-calculus has not atomic(i32).
> 
> The π-calculus is a universal model of computation.
> This was first observed by Milner in his paper
> "Functions as Processes",[10] in which he presents
> two encodings of the lambda-calculus in the π-calculus.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%A0-calculus
> 
> LoL
> 
> Bye
> 
> Chris M. Thomasson schrieb:
>  > On 7/17/2026 2:16 AM, Mild Shock wrote:
>  >> Hi,
>  >>
>  >> Maybe I should write a blog post, titled
>  >> Introduction to AI Accelerator Prolog:
>  >>
>  >> - specialized jobs π-WAM (currently integerish stuff)
>  >> - π-WAM uses no atomics, only comms
>  >> - π-WAM uses warp, 30-40% more speed
>  >> - π-WAM runs on GPU and CPU
>  >> - π-WAM runs from within JavaScript, Python and Java
>  >
>  > [...]
>  >
>  > No atomic fetch-and-add?
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15649 — Robin Milners pi calculus is typeless (Re: Milners fickle() in pi-WAM [For fun and profit])

Hi,

Mild Shock schrieb:
 > The π-calculus is a universal model of computation.
 > This was first observed by Milner in his paper
 > "Functions as Processes",[10] in which he presents
 > two encodings of the lambda-calculus in the π-calculus.
 > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%A0-calculus

Ross Finlayson schrieb:
 > Of course the lambda-calculus and pi-calculus
 > are great things for models of types and communicating
 > sequential processes.
 >
 > Roberto di Cosmo has a great book on types,
 > and more than one.
 >
 > 
https://books.google.com/books/about/Isomorphisms_of_Types.html?id=cdJZRjIxavwC

When a 1970s paper claims a relation ship between
pi-calculus and lambda calculus, then both calculi
refer to a typeless calculi.

Types are a later invention. The original lambda
calculus was typeless. Church encodings came later,
but for example the Church Turing hypotheses is

formulated along typeless lambda calculus.

Bye

P.S.: Prolog is also typeless. I do not intend to
add any types to pi-WAM either.


Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> Milners fickle() is here:
> 
> Functions as processes
> https://inria.hal.science/inria-00075405
> 
> After Theorem 7.7:
> 
> So in P we construct a fickle ‘function’ which
> behaves differently on successive calls.
> 
> Here is a pi-WAM run in Dogelog Player, using the emulator:
> 
> Dogelog Spieler 2.2.4, Oracle Corporation, Java 26.0.1
> (c) 1985-2026, XLOG Technologies AG, Schweiz
> ?- ensure_loaded(library(edge/brainfog)).
> true.
> ?- emulate((between(1,2,Y),in(X),out(Y))).
> : 0
> 1
> : 0
> 2
> fail.
> 
> The emulator is portable, can be run every Prolog
> system. But it is only 1 process. So its better
> to use the n process backends for CPU or GPU.
> 
> Which are less portable, not anymore pure Prolog,
> a great deal of thread start and join infrastructure
> as well, and a native Hack VM.
> 
> The comms across process is not yet implemented.
> But the in/1 and out/1 instructions are already
> there. But they currently go to stdin/stdout.
> 
> Bye
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> The pi in pi-WAM refers to pi-calculus.
>> pi-calculus has not atomic(i32).
>>
>> The π-calculus is a universal model of computation.
>> This was first observed by Milner in his paper
>> "Functions as Processes",[10] in which he presents
>> two encodings of the lambda-calculus in the π-calculus.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%A0-calculus
>>
>> LoL
>>
>> Bye
>>
>> Chris M. Thomasson schrieb:
>>  > On 7/17/2026 2:16 AM, Mild Shock wrote:
>>  >> Hi,
>>  >>
>>  >> Maybe I should write a blog post, titled
>>  >> Introduction to AI Accelerator Prolog:
>>  >>
>>  >> - specialized jobs π-WAM (currently integerish stuff)
>>  >> - π-WAM uses no atomics, only comms
>>  >> - π-WAM uses warp, 30-40% more speed
>>  >> - π-WAM runs on GPU and CPU
>>  >> - π-WAM runs from within JavaScript, Python and Java
>>  >
>>  > [...]
>>  >
>>  > No atomic fetch-and-add?
>>
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15650 — Can the Church Turing hypotheses be refuted? [TLo @ FOM] (Re: Robin Milners pi calculus is typeless)

Hi,

Ha Ha, TLo @ FOM schrieb:
 > Lastly--there is the Church-Turing-thesis itself.
 > I cannot imagine what form a proof could have. But at
 > least a refutation is conceivable, if extremely far-fetched.

Can the Church Turing hypotheses be refuted? Well
since it is stricly speaking only a hypothesis and
not a thesis, it cannot be that much refuted,

since it is a kind of exhaustion argument defining
a category by examples. The history goes as follows:

 > In 1935–36,[7] Alonzo Church formalized the
 > concept of effectively calculable functions by proposing
 > that they are general recursive functions, or,
 > equivalently, λ-definable functions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church%E2%80%93Turing_thesis

Does his λ-definable include types? Nope. Do
we need large cardinal axioms? It depends.
Church λ-computable was syntactically defined,

it didn't have a semantic referent. The search
for a semantic referent gave rise to certain
additional problems of set theory and type theory.

Have Fun!

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>  > The π-calculus is a universal model of computation.
>  > This was first observed by Milner in his paper
>  > "Functions as Processes",[10] in which he presents
>  > two encodings of the lambda-calculus in the π-calculus.
>  > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%A0-calculus
> 
> Ross Finlayson schrieb:
>  > Of course the lambda-calculus and pi-calculus
>  > are great things for models of types and communicating
>  > sequential processes.
>  >
>  > Roberto di Cosmo has a great book on types,
>  > and more than one.
>  >
>  > 
> https://books.google.com/books/about/Isomorphisms_of_Types.html?id=cdJZRjIxavwC 
> 
> 
> When a 1970s paper claims a relation ship between
> pi-calculus and lambda calculus, then both calculi
> refer to a typeless calculi.
> 
> Types are a later invention. The original lambda
> calculus was typeless. Church encodings came later,
> but for example the Church Turing hypotheses is
> 
> formulated along typeless lambda calculus.
> 
> Bye
> 
> P.S.: Prolog is also typeless. I do not intend to
> add any types to pi-WAM either.
> 
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Milners fickle() is here:
>>
>> Functions as processes
>> https://inria.hal.science/inria-00075405
>>
>> After Theorem 7.7:
>>
>> So in P we construct a fickle ‘function’ which
>> behaves differently on successive calls.
>>
>> Here is a pi-WAM run in Dogelog Player, using the emulator:
>>
>> Dogelog Spieler 2.2.4, Oracle Corporation, Java 26.0.1
>> (c) 1985-2026, XLOG Technologies AG, Schweiz
>> ?- ensure_loaded(library(edge/brainfog)).
>> true.
>> ?- emulate((between(1,2,Y),in(X),out(Y))).
>> : 0
>> 1
>> : 0
>> 2
>> fail.
>>
>> The emulator is portable, can be run every Prolog
>> system. But it is only 1 process. So its better
>> to use the n process backends for CPU or GPU.
>>
>> Which are less portable, not anymore pure Prolog,
>> a great deal of thread start and join infrastructure
>> as well, and a native Hack VM.
>>
>> The comms across process is not yet implemented.
>> But the in/1 and out/1 instructions are already
>> there. But they currently go to stdin/stdout.
>>
>> Bye
>>
>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> The pi in pi-WAM refers to pi-calculus.
>>> pi-calculus has not atomic(i32).
>>>
>>> The π-calculus is a universal model of computation.
>>> This was first observed by Milner in his paper
>>> "Functions as Processes",[10] in which he presents
>>> two encodings of the lambda-calculus in the π-calculus.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%A0-calculus
>>>
>>> LoL
>>>
>>> Bye
>>>
>>> Chris M. Thomasson schrieb:
>>>  > On 7/17/2026 2:16 AM, Mild Shock wrote:
>>>  >> Hi,
>>>  >>
>>>  >> Maybe I should write a blog post, titled
>>>  >> Introduction to AI Accelerator Prolog:
>>>  >>
>>>  >> - specialized jobs π-WAM (currently integerish stuff)
>>>  >> - π-WAM uses no atomics, only comms
>>>  >> - π-WAM uses warp, 30-40% more speed
>>>  >> - π-WAM runs on GPU and CPU
>>>  >> - π-WAM runs from within JavaScript, Python and Java
>>>  >
>>>  > [...]
>>>  >
>>>  > No atomic fetch-and-add?
>>>
>>
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15652 — Accelerate Lean! From Theorem 3.11 to Corollary 3.12 [ZMC] (Was: Introduction to AI Accelerator Prolog [π-WAM of Dogelog])

Hi,

Accelerate Lean! And get from Theorem 3.11
to Corollary 3.12 done.

PROJECT LANA INTERIM REPORT ON IUT THEORY
ZEN Mathematics Center - 2026/07/17
https://zen.ac.jp/en/zmc

ZMC（ZEN Mathematics Center) is an international
research institute established with the aim
of promoting and developing modern mathematics

with a focus on arithmetic geometry and the
formalization of modern mathematics using
computer languages

LoL

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> Maybe I should write a blog post, titled
> Introduction to AI Accelerator Prolog:
> 
> - specialized jobs π-WAM (currently integerish stuff)
> - π-WAM uses no atomics, only comms
> - π-WAM uses warp, 30-40% more speed
> - π-WAM runs on GPU and CPU
> - π-WAM runs from within JavaScript, Python and Java
> 
> Feels like reinventing FGCS concurrent
> logic programming.
> 
> LoL
> 
> Bye
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> So the idea is to cover backtracking without
>> stack and choice points, only with registers.
>> So at the compute goto will use an instruction
>>
>> that stores the PC target into a register,
>> a new instruction for Hack:
>>
>>     REG = PC + REL
>>
>> And then the jump will be, again a new
>> instruction for Hack:
>>
>>     PC = REG
>>
>> If we squeeze the lemon and compile as much
>> with that, we will only find that it breaks for
>> calling recursive predicates that can use
>>
>> arbitary registers and choice points. But we
>> could maybe add stack and choice point as an
>> after match, instead of the classical WAM design
>>
>> that starts with stack and choice points!
>>
>> Bye
>>
>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> pi-WAM is a nice challenge, since its aim is to go
>>> even blow the instruction set of SWI-Prolog,
>>> while only using a Hack variant as instruction
>>>
>>> stream. But what is Hack? Well Hack seems to be
>>> the missing legacy of Niclaus Wirths PL0. The
>>> Hack (machine .asm) and Jack (highlevel compiler
>>>
>>> generating .vm which can be converted to .asm)
>>> combo makes even the famous Crafting Interpreters
>>> /Lox by Bob Nystrom redundant:
>>>
>>> Nand to Tetris courses are taught at 400+
>>> universities, high schools, and bootcamps. The
>>> students who take them range from high
>>> schoolers to Ph.D. students to
>>> https://www.nand2tetris.org/
>>>
>>> But digging deaper in Hack, it has no functions
>>> pointers so objects don't use virtual tables.
>>> But what will pi-WAM need and that is not yet
>>>
>>> in Hack? Given that my pi-WAM doesn't want a stack
>>> nor a choice point lists? Currently there is the
>>> idea to add a computed goto and that it can
>>>
>>> cover a more lightweight C_OR as known from
>>> SWI-Prolog, that would have the C_OR branches
>>> maybe restricted to have no outside
>>>
>>> clause calls? Lets see. Not yet sure.
>>>
>>> Bye
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15653 — ANN: Library Pegg, for π-E-graphs [Not EXWM] (Was: Accelerate Lean! From Theorem 3.11 to Corollary 3.12 [ZMC])

Hi,

While some logicians seem to go backwards,
bascially want GPUs eliminated from laptops,
and then kill any windows manager, just use EXWM:

 From XFCE to EXWM
Emacs is a text editor that, through EXWM (Emacs X
Window Manager), can also be your window manager:
https://www.vidal-rosset.net/2026-07-12-from-xfce-to-exwm-living-in-emacs-desktop-on-mx-linux.html

Mostlikely we might soon see the backward
sequel to E-graphs called EMACS-graphs. But
here is my proposal, why not go the other way?

- π-E-graphs: Basically parallel E-graphs
- Pegg: An alternative egg library, using π-WAM

Ok, this will not come so fast. Currently
my π-WAM is still very integerish. Not
sure how to do anything E-graph yet.

Bye

P.S: There is already an attempt based on
Scala 3.4.1, some experiments done on
Intel Core i7-12700K using 8 threads.

But why use a very old CPU from Q4'21,
when you can use an AI Laptop from 2026
with 512 GPU streaming processors?

Parallel and Customizable Equality Saturation
https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3771775.3786266

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> Accelerate Lean! And get from Theorem 3.11
> to Corollary 3.12 done.
> 
> PROJECT LANA INTERIM REPORT ON IUT THEORY
> ZEN Mathematics Center - 2026/07/17
> https://zen.ac.jp/en/zmc
> 
> ZMC（ZEN Mathematics Center) is an international
> research institute established with the aim
> of promoting and developing modern mathematics
> 
> with a focus on arithmetic geometry and the
> formalization of modern mathematics using
> computer languages
> 
> LoL
> 
> Bye
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Maybe I should write a blog post, titled
>> Introduction to AI Accelerator Prolog:
>>
>> - specialized jobs π-WAM (currently integerish stuff)
>> - π-WAM uses no atomics, only comms
>> - π-WAM uses warp, 30-40% more speed
>> - π-WAM runs on GPU and CPU
>> - π-WAM runs from within JavaScript, Python and Java
>>
>> Feels like reinventing FGCS concurrent
>> logic programming.
>>
>> LoL
>>
>> Bye
>>
>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> So the idea is to cover backtracking without
>>> stack and choice points, only with registers.
>>> So at the compute goto will use an instruction
>>>
>>> that stores the PC target into a register,
>>> a new instruction for Hack:
>>>
>>>     REG = PC + REL
>>>
>>> And then the jump will be, again a new
>>> instruction for Hack:
>>>
>>>     PC = REG
>>>
>>> If we squeeze the lemon and compile as much
>>> with that, we will only find that it breaks for
>>> calling recursive predicates that can use
>>>
>>> arbitary registers and choice points. But we
>>> could maybe add stack and choice point as an
>>> after match, instead of the classical WAM design
>>>
>>> that starts with stack and choice points!
>>>
>>> Bye
>>>
>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> pi-WAM is a nice challenge, since its aim is to go
>>>> even blow the instruction set of SWI-Prolog,
>>>> while only using a Hack variant as instruction
>>>>
>>>> stream. But what is Hack? Well Hack seems to be
>>>> the missing legacy of Niclaus Wirths PL0. The
>>>> Hack (machine .asm) and Jack (highlevel compiler
>>>>
>>>> generating .vm which can be converted to .asm)
>>>> combo makes even the famous Crafting Interpreters
>>>> /Lox by Bob Nystrom redundant:
>>>>
>>>> Nand to Tetris courses are taught at 400+
>>>> universities, high schools, and bootcamps. The
>>>> students who take them range from high
>>>> schoolers to Ph.D. students to
>>>> https://www.nand2tetris.org/
>>>>
>>>> But digging deaper in Hack, it has no functions
>>>> pointers so objects don't use virtual tables.
>>>> But what will pi-WAM need and that is not yet
>>>>
>>>> in Hack? Given that my pi-WAM doesn't want a stack
>>>> nor a choice point lists? Currently there is the
>>>> idea to add a computed goto and that it can
>>>>
>>>> cover a more lightweight C_OR as known from
>>>> SWI-Prolog, that would have the C_OR branches
>>>> maybe restricted to have no outside
>>>>
>>>> clause calls? Lets see. Not yet sure.
>>>>
>>>> Bye
>>
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.prolog

csiph-web