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 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#14461 — Prolog Education Group clueless about the AI Boom?

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] | [next] | [standalone]

#14462

My suspicion, teaching WalkSAT as an altermative
to DPLL, and show its limitations would maybe give
more bang. We are currently entering an era that
already started in the end of 1990

when some new probabilistic complexity classes
were defined. Many machine learning techniques
have also such an aspect, and it will only get
worse with Quantum Computing. Having

a grip on these things helps also distinguishing
when a AI acts by chance, or whether it diverts from
chance and shows some excelling adaptation to the
problem domain at hand. Like here,

anybody an idea what they mean by “above chance”?

Intuitive physics understanding emerges from
self-supervised pretraining on natural videos
https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.11831

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]

#14463 — Salary Templates if you "Grok" ML / AI [PhDs Negotiate Salaries] (Re: Prolog Education Group clueless about the AI Boom?)

Hi,

Salary Templates if you "Grok" ML / AI [PhDs negotiate salaries]:

Tendency to go towards 500'000.- USD per year
https://x.com/chiefaioffice/status/1734329284821672270

But I guess you need to have the talent to train a ChatGPT.
Still very rare, I had interesting discussions on the internet.

LoL

Bye

         Final Annual	Initial	Negotiated
Company	Compensation	Compensation	Delta
OpenAl	$865K	$665K	30%
Anthropic	$855K	$855K	0%
Inflection*	$825K	NA	NA
Tesla	$780K	$702K	11%
Amazon	$719K	$520K	38%
Google Brain	$695K	$590K	17%
TikTok	$605K	$430K	40%
FAIR	$556K	$480K	15%
Google Research	$549K	$310K	77%
Waymo	$530K	$385K	37%
Deepmind	$515K	$452K	13%
Bloomberg Al	$460K	$318K	44%
Apple	$450K	$337K	33%
Microsoft Research	$449K	$270K	66%
Salesforce Research	$441K	$355K	24%
Toyota Research	$410K	$370K	10%
Twitter	$409K	$359K	13%
NVIDIA	$390K	$340K	14%
IBM Research	$377K	$262K	43%
Allen Institute	$350K	$310K	12%
Samsung Research	$285K	$240K	18%
Hugging Face	$238K	$185K	27%

Mild Shock schrieb:
> 
> My suspicion, teaching WalkSAT as an altermative
> to DPLL, and show its limitations would maybe give
> more bang. We are currently entering an era that
> already started in the end of 1990
> 
> when some new probabilistic complexity classes
> were defined. Many machine learning techniques
> have also such an aspect, and it will only get
> worse with Quantum Computing. Having
> 
> a grip on these things helps also distinguishing
> when a AI acts by chance, or whether it diverts from
> chance and shows some excelling adaptation to the
> problem domain at hand. Like here,
> 
> anybody an idea what they mean by “above chance”?
> 
> Intuitive physics understanding emerges from
> self-supervised pretraining on natural videos
> https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.11831
> 
> 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]

#14467 — ILP is still dreaming of higher order (Was: Prolog Education Group clueless about the AI Boom?)

The first deep learning breakthrough was
AlexNet by Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever
and Geoffrey Hinton:

 > In 2011, Geoffrey Hinton started reaching out
 > to colleagues about “What do I have to do to
 > convince you that neural networks are the future?”
 > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlexNet

Meanwhile ILP is still dreaming of higher order logic:

 > We pull it out of thin air. And the job that does
 > is, indeed, that it breaks up relations into
 > sub-relations or sub-routines, if you prefer.

You mean this here:

 > Background knowledge (Second Order)
 > -----------------------------------
 > (Chain) ∃.P,Q,R ∀.x,y,z: P(x,y)← Q(x,z),R(z,y)
 >
 > https://github.com/stassa/vanilla/tree/master/lib/poker

Thats too general, it doesn’t adress
analogical reasoning.

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]

#14468 — Re: ILP is still dreaming of higher order (Was: Prolog Education Group clueless about the AI Boom?)

You are probably aiming at the decomposition
of autoencoder or transformer into an encoder
and decoder. Making the split up automatically

from a more general ILP framework.

 > The H is the bottleneck on purpose:
 >
 > relation(X, Y) :- encoder(X, H), decoder(H, Y).

Ok you missed the point. Lets assume for the
moment the H on purpose is not something that
happens accidential through a more general

learning algorithm. But it is a design feature
of how we want to learn. Can we incorporate
analogical reasoning, the parallelogram?

Yeah, relatively simple, just add more input
and output layers. The new parameter K indicates
how the representation was chosen:

relation(X, Y) :-
    similar(X, A, K),
    encoder(A, H),
    decoder(H, B),
    similar(Y, B, K).

Its again an autoencoder respectively transformer,
with a bigger latent space. Prominent additional input
layers that work here are convolutional neural networks.

Things like max pooling or self-attention pooling:

relation(X, Y) :-
    encoder2(X, J),
    decoder2(J, Y).

encoder2(X, [K|H]) :-
    similar(X, A, K),
    encoder(A, H),

decoder2([K|H], Y) :-
    decoder(H, B),
    similar(Y, B, K).

You can learn the decoder2/2 as a whole in your
autoencoder and transformer learning framework,
provided it can deal with many layers, i.e.

if it has deep learning techniques.

Mild Shock schrieb:
> The first deep learning breakthrough was
> AlexNet by Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever
> and Geoffrey Hinton:
> 
>  > In 2011, Geoffrey Hinton started reaching out
>  > to colleagues about “What do I have to do to
>  > convince you that neural networks are the future?”
>  > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlexNet
> 
> Meanwhile ILP is still dreaming of higher order logic:
> 
>  > We pull it out of thin air. And the job that does
>  > is, indeed, that it breaks up relations into
>  > sub-relations or sub-routines, if you prefer.
> 
> You mean this here:
> 
>  > Background knowledge (Second Order)
>  > -----------------------------------
>  > (Chain) ∃.P,Q,R ∀.x,y,z: P(x,y)← Q(x,z),R(z,y)
>  >
>  > https://github.com/stassa/vanilla/tree/master/lib/poker
> 
> Thats too general, it doesn’t adress
> analogical reasoning.
> 
> 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]

#14774 — FYI: Philip Zucker’s Co-Egraphs (Was: Prolog Education Group clueless about the AI Boom?)

Struggle understanding Hopcroft and Karp (1971) ?
No worries Philip Zucker is the man:

Co-Egraphs: Streams, Unification, PEGs, Rational Lambdas
You can make egraphs support stream like things / rational terms.
https://www.philipzucker.com/coegraph/

Strange I came up with the same stuff over the last
weeks while discussing with @kuniaki.mukai .

Lets say 2025 is the year of rational trees!

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]

#14775 — Using Hopcroft & Karp (HK) everywhere (Was: FYI: Philip Zucker’s Co-Egraphs)

Hi,

Using Hopcroft & Karp (HK) everywhere
clearly reases the bar. I decided to use
HK also in compare/3 , just to have it

detect structure sharing. But here a little
test comparing with WebPL, only (=)/2 because
I didn't find compare/3:

/* WebPL May 2025 */
test(25).
True
(1040.4ms)
https://webpl.whenderson.dev/

/* Dogelog Player 1.3.6 */
:- version.
:- time(test(25)).
Dogelog Spieler, Prolog zum Mond, 1.3.6 (02.08.2025)
(c) 1985-2025, XLOG Technologies AG, Schweiz
% Zeit 1 ms, GC 0 ms, Lips 125000, Uhr 14.08.2025 12:30
https://www.dogelog.ch/littab/doclet/live/07_basic/example01/package.html

SWI-Prolog WASM can also do it fast. The
old Trealla WASM version cannot do it fast.

Bye

P.S.: The test code:

hydra(0,_) :- !.
hydra(N,s(X,X)) :- M is N-1, hydra(M,X).

test(N) :-
    hydra(N,X), hydra(N,Y), X = Y.

Mild Shock schrieb:
> 
> Struggle understanding Hopcroft and Karp (1971) ?
> No worries Philip Zucker is the man:
> 
> Co-Egraphs: Streams, Unification, PEGs, Rational Lambdas
> You can make egraphs support stream like things / rational terms.
> https://www.philipzucker.com/coegraph/
> 
> Strange I came up with the same stuff over the last
> weeks while discussing with @kuniaki.mukai .
> 
> Lets say 2025 is the year of rational trees!
> 
> 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]

#14776 — Confusing "decidable problem" and "complete algorithm" (Was: Using Hopcroft & Karp (HK) everywhere)

Hi,

This is a nice confusion of the highest order.

 > observations on the decidability

Well in summary the existence of a pretest (==)/2
makes Mercio's decidable. Equality on rational trees
is decidable, even if it comes in disguise as Mercio’s
mathematical definition, which gives a total order

which is unfortunately not a natural order:

A=B :⟺ A' =lex B'

A<B :⟺ A' <lex B'

Natural order of rational trees?
https://math.stackexchange.com/a/210730

Why is Mercio’s mathematical definition of equality
decidable? Because it is semantically equivalent to
bisimulation as implemented in (==)/2 , and decidable
is a semantic notion:

Decidability (logic)
In logic, a true/false decision problem is decidableif there
exists an effective method for deriving the correct answer.
Decidability (logic) - Wikipedia

So if you talk about semi-decidable, decidable etc..
its always about the existence of an algorithm in
the large space of effective method according to
the Church hypothesis.

If you want to talk about a particular algorithm
you would use the terminology “incomplete”. Like for
example DFS algorithms are “incomplete” compared to
BFS algorithms on certain problems.

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> Using Hopcroft & Karp (HK) everywhere
> clearly reases the bar. I decided to use
> HK also in compare/3 , just to have it
> 
> detect structure sharing. But here a little
> test comparing with WebPL, only (=)/2 because
> I didn't find compare/3:
> 
> /* WebPL May 2025 */
> test(25).
> True
> (1040.4ms)
> https://webpl.whenderson.dev/
> 
> /* Dogelog Player 1.3.6 */
> :- version.
> :- time(test(25)).
> Dogelog Spieler, Prolog zum Mond, 1.3.6 (02.08.2025)
> (c) 1985-2025, XLOG Technologies AG, Schweiz
> % Zeit 1 ms, GC 0 ms, Lips 125000, Uhr 14.08.2025 12:30
> https://www.dogelog.ch/littab/doclet/live/07_basic/example01/package.html
> 
> SWI-Prolog WASM can also do it fast. The
> old Trealla WASM version cannot do it fast.
> 
> Bye
> 
> P.S.: The test code:
> 
> hydra(0,_) :- !.
> hydra(N,s(X,X)) :- M is N-1, hydra(M,X).
> 
> test(N) :-
>     hydra(N,X), hydra(N,Y), X = Y.
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>
>> Struggle understanding Hopcroft and Karp (1971) ?
>> No worries Philip Zucker is the man:
>>
>> Co-Egraphs: Streams, Unification, PEGs, Rational Lambdas
>> You can make egraphs support stream like things / rational terms.
>> https://www.philipzucker.com/coegraph/
>>
>> Strange I came up with the same stuff over the last
>> weeks while discussing with @kuniaki.mukai .
>>
>> Lets say 2025 is the year of rational trees!
>>
>> 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]

#14777 — DFA algorithms in a Python library (Re: Confusing "decidable problem" and "complete algorithm")

Hi,

DFS algorithms can nevertheless gain some completness
power on rational trees when paired with loop checking.
Like @kuniaki.mukai was using in compare_with_stack/3.
They might be not as good as HK though.

You find a DFA subset and equality relation here,
implemented via DFS algorithms using a visitor set:

def find_equiv_counterexample(dfa_a, dfa_b):
     # Symmetric difference: strings accepted by exactly one DFA
     return find_word(dfa_a ^ dfa_b)

def find_subset_counterexample(smaller, bigger):
     # Intersection of "smaller" with the complement of "bigger"
     return find_word(~bigger & smaller)

https://pypi.org/project/dfa/

The later results in ordering DFAs by a partial order
and not by a total order. The project has also a DFA
minimization algorithm. But I didn’t get my head around
yet implementing it,

and I don’t know whether @kuniaki.mukai implemented
the DFA minimization algorithm that has supposedly
O(N log(N)) complexity.

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> This is a nice confusion of the highest order.
> 
>  > observations on the decidability
> 
> Well in summary the existence of a pretest (==)/2
> makes Mercio's decidable. Equality on rational trees
> is decidable, even if it comes in disguise as Mercio’s
> mathematical definition, which gives a total order
> 
> which is unfortunately not a natural order:
> 
> A=B :⟺ A' =lex B'
> 
> A<B :⟺ A' <lex B'
> 
> Natural order of rational trees?
> https://math.stackexchange.com/a/210730
> 
> Why is Mercio’s mathematical definition of equality
> decidable? Because it is semantically equivalent to
> bisimulation as implemented in (==)/2 , and decidable
> is a semantic notion:
> 
> Decidability (logic)
> In logic, a true/false decision problem is decidableif there
> exists an effective method for deriving the correct answer.
> Decidability (logic) - Wikipedia
> 
> So if you talk about semi-decidable, decidable etc..
> its always about the existence of an algorithm in
> the large space of effective method according to
> the Church hypothesis.
> 
> If you want to talk about a particular algorithm
> you would use the terminology “incomplete”. Like for
> example DFS algorithms are “incomplete” compared to
> BFS algorithms on certain problems.
> 
> Bye

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

#14783 — Static Variable Shunting in Dogelog Player (Was: Using Hopcroft & Karp (HK) everywhere)

There is a difference between this:

/* Version I */
fun(X, Y, Z, A) :-
	X =< Y, !,
	Z = A.
fun(X, Y, Z, A) :-
	X1 is X - 1,
	fun(X1, Y, Z, A1),
	Y1 is Y - 1,
	fun(Y1, Z, X, A2),
	Z1 is Z - 1,
	fun(Z1, X, Y, A3),
	fun(A1, A2, A3, A).

And this in Dogelog Player:

/* Version II */
fun(X, Y, Z, A) :-
	X =< Y, !,
	Z = A.
fun(X, Y, Z, A) :-
	X1 is X - 1,
	Y1 is Y - 1,
	Z1 is Z - 1,
	fun(X1, Y, Z, A1),
	fun(Y1, Z, X, A2),
	fun(Z1, X, Y, A3),
	fun(A1, A2, A3, A).

Usually I am benchmarking Version I, but Version II
gives Dogelog Player the opportunity to do more
static Variable Shunting. Which is seen in the

performance. Not its JavaScript not WASM:

/* Version I */
% Zeit 1723 ms, GC 6 ms, Lips 4863960, Uhr 16.08.2025 11:21

/* Version II */
% Zeit 1489 ms, GC 2 ms, Lips 5628343, Uhr 16.08.2025 11:21

Was resting:

mtak :- between(1,31,_), fun(18, 12, 6, _), fail.
mtak.

:- time(mtak).

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

#14784 — Dynamic Variable Shunting in WebPL (Was: Static Variable Shunting in Dogelog Player)

Hi,

It seems the gist of WebPL is to examine
dynamic variable shunting as part of a
garbage collection strategy, as found here:

Variable Shunting for the WAM
Sahlin, D. and Carlsson, M. - 1991
https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1041385/FULLTEXT01.pdf

Does it pay off? I am testing
Version II of mtak:

/* WebPL GC Rust-WAMS */
True
(1875.2ms)
No more results

/* Trealla Prolog C-WASM */
True
(1269.5ms)
No more results

/* SWI-Prolog C-WASM */
True
(1368.9ms)
No more results

The 1875.2ms are worse than my 1489 ms. The
1269.5ms and 1368.9ms are only slightly better
than my 1489 ms.

I would say static shunting is the secret ingredient
of Dogelog Player, that makes it fast sometimes!
Just think about it, in the above JavaScript is

compared to WASM. Whats going on? Of course
one should repeat the test with newest and newest
SWI-Prolog and Trealla Prolog. Don't know

whether there is a site that does all the updates.

Bye

BTW: For between/2 was using:

between(Lo, Lo, R) :- !, Lo = R.
between(Lo, _, Lo).
between(Lo, Hi, X) :- Lo2 is Lo+1, between(Lo2, Hi, X).

Mild Shock schrieb:
> There is a difference between this:
> 
> /* Version I */
> fun(X, Y, Z, A) :-
>      X =< Y, !,
>      Z = A.
> fun(X, Y, Z, A) :-
>      X1 is X - 1,
>      fun(X1, Y, Z, A1),
>      Y1 is Y - 1,
>      fun(Y1, Z, X, A2),
>      Z1 is Z - 1,
>      fun(Z1, X, Y, A3),
>      fun(A1, A2, A3, A).
> 
> And this in Dogelog Player:
> 
> /* Version II */
> fun(X, Y, Z, A) :-
>      X =< Y, !,
>      Z = A.
> fun(X, Y, Z, A) :-
>      X1 is X - 1,
>      Y1 is Y - 1,
>      Z1 is Z - 1,
>      fun(X1, Y, Z, A1),
>      fun(Y1, Z, X, A2),
>      fun(Z1, X, Y, A3),
>      fun(A1, A2, A3, A).
> 
> Usually I am benchmarking Version I, but Version II
> gives Dogelog Player the opportunity to do more
> static Variable Shunting. Which is seen in the
> 
> performance. Not its JavaScript not WASM:
> 
> /* Version I */
> % Zeit 1723 ms, GC 6 ms, Lips 4863960, Uhr 16.08.2025 11:21
> 
> /* Version II */
> % Zeit 1489 ms, GC 2 ms, Lips 5628343, Uhr 16.08.2025 11:21
> 
> Was resting:
> 
> mtak :- between(1,31,_), fun(18, 12, 6, _), fail.
> mtak.
> 
> :- time(mtak).

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

#14785 — SWI-Prolog is still the OG of GC (Was: Dynamic Variable Shunting in WebPL)

Hi,

BTW: Here a test without WASM:

/* Trealla Prolog 2.82.12 WSL2 */
?- time(mtak).
% Time elapsed 0.734s, 8873504 Inferences, 12.091 MLips
    true.

/* SWI Prolog 9.0.4 WSL2 */
?- time(mtak).
% 3,943,790 inferences, 0.210 CPU in 0.217 seconds
(97% CPU, 18777906 Lips)
true.

/* Dogelog Player 1.3.6 Windows 11 */
?- time(mtak).
% Zeit 412 ms, GC 0 ms, Lips 20341271, Uhr 16.08.2025 11:40
true.

/* Jekejeke Prolog 1.7.3 Windows 11 */
?- time(mtak).
% Zeit 664 ms, GC 3 ms, Uhr 16.08.2025 11:41
true.

I didn't test Scryer Prolog because it has no GC.
I keep testing Jekejeke Prolog because it has
reference counting. But Dogelog Player without

reference counting and true garbage collection,
seems to be more speedy. Not as fast as SWI-Prolog.
But faster than Trealla Prolog.

So SWI-Prolog is still the Orginal Gangster (OG)
of garbage collection (GC). Some Prolog systems
like Ciao Prolog, ECLiPSe Prolog or SICStus Prolog

might be even faster, since it seems to me they use
native backend compilation schemes, AOT or JIT. The
tested systems above are all more of the

interpreter type Prolog systems.

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> It seems the gist of WebPL is to examine
> dynamic variable shunting as part of a
> garbage collection strategy, as found here:
> 
> Variable Shunting for the WAM
> Sahlin, D. and Carlsson, M. - 1991
> https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1041385/FULLTEXT01.pdf
> 
> Does it pay off? I am testing
> Version II of mtak:
> 
> /* WebPL GC Rust-WAMS */
> True
> (1875.2ms)
> No more results
> 
> /* Trealla Prolog C-WASM */
> True
> (1269.5ms)
> No more results
> 
> /* SWI-Prolog C-WASM */
> True
> (1368.9ms)
> No more results
> 
> The 1875.2ms are worse than my 1489 ms. The
> 1269.5ms and 1368.9ms are only slightly better
> than my 1489 ms.
> 
> I would say static shunting is the secret ingredient
> of Dogelog Player, that makes it fast sometimes!
> Just think about it, in the above JavaScript is
> 
> compared to WASM. Whats going on? Of course
> one should repeat the test with newest and newest
> SWI-Prolog and Trealla Prolog. Don't know
> 
> whether there is a site that does all the updates.
> 
> Bye
> 
> BTW: For between/2 was using:
> 
> between(Lo, Lo, R) :- !, Lo = R.
> between(Lo, _, Lo).
> between(Lo, Hi, X) :- Lo2 is Lo+1, between(Lo2, Hi, X).
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> There is a difference between this:
>>
>> /* Version I */
>> fun(X, Y, Z, A) :-
>>      X =< Y, !,
>>      Z = A.
>> fun(X, Y, Z, A) :-
>>      X1 is X - 1,
>>      fun(X1, Y, Z, A1),
>>      Y1 is Y - 1,
>>      fun(Y1, Z, X, A2),
>>      Z1 is Z - 1,
>>      fun(Z1, X, Y, A3),
>>      fun(A1, A2, A3, A).
>>
>> And this in Dogelog Player:
>>
>> /* Version II */
>> fun(X, Y, Z, A) :-
>>      X =< Y, !,
>>      Z = A.
>> fun(X, Y, Z, A) :-
>>      X1 is X - 1,
>>      Y1 is Y - 1,
>>      Z1 is Z - 1,
>>      fun(X1, Y, Z, A1),
>>      fun(Y1, Z, X, A2),
>>      fun(Z1, X, Y, A3),
>>      fun(A1, A2, A3, A).
>>
>> Usually I am benchmarking Version I, but Version II
>> gives Dogelog Player the opportunity to do more
>> static Variable Shunting. Which is seen in the
>>
>> performance. Not its JavaScript not WASM:
>>
>> /* Version I */
>> % Zeit 1723 ms, GC 6 ms, Lips 4863960, Uhr 16.08.2025 11:21
>>
>> /* Version II */
>> % Zeit 1489 ms, GC 2 ms, Lips 5628343, Uhr 16.08.2025 11:21
>>
>> Was resting:
>>
>> mtak :- between(1,31,_), fun(18, 12, 6, _), fail.
>> mtak.
>>
>> :- time(mtak).
> 

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

#14786 — Cyclic Term Unification is Accounted (Was: SWI-Prolog is still the OG of GC)

Hi,

In the newest test results below, Cyclic
Term Unification of Clause Heads is already
Accounted. Means I tested versions that

have Cyclic Term Unification deep in the
Prolog interpreter. Why does it not slow down
the Prolog system? Because Cyclic Term

Unification doesn't kick in for certain Prolog
system designs under certain conditions:

- If the head is linear no cyclic unification
   happens. Since the machine code for head
   unification is executed in write-unification
   mode. All variables are "first_var" instructions.

- Even if the the calling goal is smaller than
   the head, means if a switch happens to
   read-unification mode, again cyclic unification
   doesn't happen for linear patterns.

You can check yourself whether a head is linear
or not. Just define:

term_linear(X) :-
    term_variables(X, L),
    term_singletons(X, R),
    L == R.

?- term_linear(fun(X, Y, Z, A)).
true.

The bad thing is this holds only for Dogelog Player
which has the smarter head unification. While it
doesn't hold for formerly Jekejeke Prolog,

which has an ancient PLM design. So Jekejeke Prolog
got indeed a little slower with Cyclic Term Unification
and I don't know much what I could do against it.

I had old versions of Jekejeke Prolog which did
indeed special head linear compilation, and linear
head unification execution, as some experiment in

occurs check. But I wont resurrect this special
compilation. I am more preparing the final graveyard
for Jekejeke Prolog. But there are still a few things

to harvest from formerly Jekejeke Prolog,
so the final stab might come in 1-2 years.

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> BTW: Here a test without WASM:
> 
> /* Trealla Prolog 2.82.12 WSL2 */
> ?- time(mtak).
> % Time elapsed 0.734s, 8873504 Inferences, 12.091 MLips
>     true.
> 
> /* SWI Prolog 9.0.4 WSL2 */
> ?- time(mtak).
> % 3,943,790 inferences, 0.210 CPU in 0.217 seconds
> (97% CPU, 18777906 Lips)
> true.
> 
> /* Dogelog Player 1.3.6 Windows 11 */
> ?- time(mtak).
> % Zeit 412 ms, GC 0 ms, Lips 20341271, Uhr 16.08.2025 11:40
> true.
> 
> /* Jekejeke Prolog 1.7.3 Windows 11 */
> ?- time(mtak).
> % Zeit 664 ms, GC 3 ms, Uhr 16.08.2025 11:41
> true.
> 
> I didn't test Scryer Prolog because it has no GC.
> I keep testing Jekejeke Prolog because it has
> reference counting. But Dogelog Player without
> 
> reference counting and true garbage collection,
> seems to be more speedy. Not as fast as SWI-Prolog.
> But faster than Trealla Prolog.
> 
> So SWI-Prolog is still the Orginal Gangster (OG)
> of garbage collection (GC). Some Prolog systems
> like Ciao Prolog, ECLiPSe Prolog or SICStus Prolog
> 
> might be even faster, since it seems to me they use
> native backend compilation schemes, AOT or JIT. The
> tested systems above are all more of the
> 
> interpreter type Prolog systems.
> 
> Bye
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> It seems the gist of WebPL is to examine
>> dynamic variable shunting as part of a
>> garbage collection strategy, as found here:
>>
>> Variable Shunting for the WAM
>> Sahlin, D. and Carlsson, M. - 1991
>> https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1041385/FULLTEXT01.pdf
>>
>> Does it pay off? I am testing
>> Version II of mtak:
>>
>> /* WebPL GC Rust-WAMS */
>> True
>> (1875.2ms)
>> No more results
>>
>> /* Trealla Prolog C-WASM */
>> True
>> (1269.5ms)
>> No more results
>>
>> /* SWI-Prolog C-WASM */
>> True
>> (1368.9ms)
>> No more results
>>
>> The 1875.2ms are worse than my 1489 ms. The
>> 1269.5ms and 1368.9ms are only slightly better
>> than my 1489 ms.
>>
>> I would say static shunting is the secret ingredient
>> of Dogelog Player, that makes it fast sometimes!
>> Just think about it, in the above JavaScript is
>>
>> compared to WASM. Whats going on? Of course
>> one should repeat the test with newest and newest
>> SWI-Prolog and Trealla Prolog. Don't know
>>
>> whether there is a site that does all the updates.
>>
>> Bye
>>
>> BTW: For between/2 was using:
>>
>> between(Lo, Lo, R) :- !, Lo = R.
>> between(Lo, _, Lo).
>> between(Lo, Hi, X) :- Lo2 is Lo+1, between(Lo2, Hi, X).
>>
>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>> There is a difference between this:
>>>
>>> /* Version I */
>>> fun(X, Y, Z, A) :-
>>>      X =< Y, !,
>>>      Z = A.
>>> fun(X, Y, Z, A) :-
>>>      X1 is X - 1,
>>>      fun(X1, Y, Z, A1),
>>>      Y1 is Y - 1,
>>>      fun(Y1, Z, X, A2),
>>>      Z1 is Z - 1,
>>>      fun(Z1, X, Y, A3),
>>>      fun(A1, A2, A3, A).
>>>
>>> And this in Dogelog Player:
>>>
>>> /* Version II */
>>> fun(X, Y, Z, A) :-
>>>      X =< Y, !,
>>>      Z = A.
>>> fun(X, Y, Z, A) :-
>>>      X1 is X - 1,
>>>      Y1 is Y - 1,
>>>      Z1 is Z - 1,
>>>      fun(X1, Y, Z, A1),
>>>      fun(Y1, Z, X, A2),
>>>      fun(Z1, X, Y, A3),
>>>      fun(A1, A2, A3, A).
>>>
>>> Usually I am benchmarking Version I, but Version II
>>> gives Dogelog Player the opportunity to do more
>>> static Variable Shunting. Which is seen in the
>>>
>>> performance. Not its JavaScript not WASM:
>>>
>>> /* Version I */
>>> % Zeit 1723 ms, GC 6 ms, Lips 4863960, Uhr 16.08.2025 11:21
>>>
>>> /* Version II */
>>> % Zeit 1489 ms, GC 2 ms, Lips 5628343, Uhr 16.08.2025 11:21
>>>
>>> Was resting:
>>>
>>> mtak :- between(1,31,_), fun(18, 12, 6, _), fail.
>>> mtak.
>>>
>>> :- time(mtak).
>>
> 

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

#14790 — WebPL is an interesting project (Was: SWI-Prolog is still the OG of GC)

Hi,

The paper by Shalin and Carlson from 1991
did not yet ring a bell. But it suggest testing
something with primes and freeze. Lets do

primes as suggested but without freeze. SWI-Prolog
seems not to the OG of GC. Putting aside Shalin
and Carlson, its an typical example of a lot of

intermediate results, that can be discarded by
a garbage collection. Every candidate number that
is not a prime number can be remove from the

trail they get unreachable in the first clause
of search/3. Besides this obvious unreachability
task, I don't have statistics or don't see immediately

where large variable instantiation chains are supposed
to be created. At least not in my Prolog system, since
a result variable is passed without binding it to a

local variable, this "shunting" happens independent
of neck tests and the "shunting" there. The result variable
passing is extremly simple to implement and could

be what is effective here besides the reachability thingy.
At least the 1 ms GC time in Dogelog Player show that
the reachability thingy is the minor effort or optimization

to get nice performance:


/* WebPL GC */
(1846.1ms)

/* Dogelog Player 1.3.6 for JavaScript (16.08.2025) */
% Zeit 2992 ms, GC 1 ms, Lips 2514202, Uhr 17.08.2025 17:44

/* SWI-Prolog WASM */
(4204.2ms)

/* Trealla Prolog WASM */
(23568.9ms)

The test code was:

test :-
    len(L, 1000),
    primes(L, _).

primes([], 1).
primes([J|L], J) :-
    primes(L, I),
    K is I+1,
    search(L, K, J).

search(L, I, J) :-
    mem(X, L),
    I mod X =:= 0, !,
    K is I+1,
    search(L, K, J).
search(_, I, I).

mem(X, [X|_]).
mem(X, [_|Y]) :-
    mem(X, Y).

len([], 0) :- !.
len([_|L], N) :-
    N > 0,
    M is N-1,
    len(L, M).

Bye

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

#14791 — Head to Head Race with Scryer Prolog (Was: WebPL is an interesting project)

Hi,

Here some test results when testing
Desktop and not the Web. With Desktop
Prolog versions I find:

/* SWI-Prolog 9.3.28 */
% 7,506,637 inferences, 0.578 CPU in 0.567 seconds

/* Dogelog Player 1.3.6 for Java (16.08.2025) */
% Zeit 803 ms, GC 0 ms, Lips 9367988, Uhr 17.08.2025 18:03

/* Scryer Prolog 0.9.4-592 */
% CPU time: 0.838s, 7_517_613 inferences

/* Trealla Prolog 2.82.12 */
% Time elapsed 2.315s, 11263917 Inferences, 4.866 MLips

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> The paper by Shalin and Carlson from 1991
> did not yet ring a bell. But it suggest testing
> something with primes and freeze. Lets do
> 
> primes as suggested but without freeze. SWI-Prolog
> seems not to the OG of GC. Putting aside Shalin
> and Carlson, its an typical example of a lot of
> 
> intermediate results, that can be discarded by
> a garbage collection. Every candidate number that
> is not a prime number can be remove from the
> 
> trail they get unreachable in the first clause
> of search/3. Besides this obvious unreachability
> task, I don't have statistics or don't see immediately
> 
> where large variable instantiation chains are supposed
> to be created. At least not in my Prolog system, since
> a result variable is passed without binding it to a
> 
> local variable, this "shunting" happens independent
> of neck tests and the "shunting" there. The result variable
> passing is extremly simple to implement and could
> 
> be what is effective here besides the reachability thingy.
> At least the 1 ms GC time in Dogelog Player show that
> the reachability thingy is the minor effort or optimization
> 
> to get nice performance:
> 
> 
> /* WebPL GC */
> (1846.1ms)
> 
> /* Dogelog Player 1.3.6 for JavaScript (16.08.2025) */
> % Zeit 2992 ms, GC 1 ms, Lips 2514202, Uhr 17.08.2025 17:44
> 
> /* SWI-Prolog WASM */
> (4204.2ms)
> 
> /* Trealla Prolog WASM */
> (23568.9ms)
> 
> The test code was:
> 
> test :-
>     len(L, 1000),
>     primes(L, _).
> 
> primes([], 1).
> primes([J|L], J) :-
>     primes(L, I),
>     K is I+1,
>     search(L, K, J).
> 
> search(L, I, J) :-
>     mem(X, L),
>     I mod X =:= 0, !,
>     K is I+1,
>     search(L, K, J).
> search(_, I, I).
> 
> mem(X, [X|_]).
> mem(X, [_|Y]) :-
>     mem(X, Y).
> 
> len([], 0) :- !.
> len([_|L], N) :-
>     N > 0,
>     M is N-1,
>     len(L, M).
> 
> Bye

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

#15459 — Does Variable Age make Sense? [Prolog Unification] (Was: Head to Head Race with Scryer Prolog)

Hi,

The WebPL shunting experiment still resonates. Dogelog
Players assumption is implicit shunting through
unification variable bind preferences, derived

from how unification is called. So I rearranged
the implementation of member/2 a little bit, and
now I get, a less invasive version, doesn't modify L:

/* Dogelog Player 2.1.5 Preview */

/* Not Invasive */
?- T = T, L = [X,Y,Z], member(T, L), write(L), nl, fail; true.
[_0, _1, _2]
[_0, _1, _2]
[_0, _1, _2]
true.

/* Not Invasive */
?- L = [X,Y,Z], T = T, member(T, L), write(L), nl, fail; true.
[_3, _4, _5]
[_3, _4, _5]
[_3, _4, _5]
true.

We can compare with SWI-Prolog:

/* SWI-Prolog 10.1.1 */
/* Invasive */
?- T = T, L = [X,Y,Z], member(T, L), write(L), nl, fail; true.
[_13280,_13294,_13300]
[_13288,_13280,_13300]
[_13288,_13294,_13280]
true.

/* Not Invasive */
?- L = [X,Y,Z], T = T, member(T, L), write(L), nl, fail; true.
[_18762,_18768,_18774]
[_18762,_18768,_18774]
[_18762,_18768,_18774]
true.

And the result for Scryer Prolog:

/* Scryer Prolog 0.10 */
/* Invasive */
?- T = T, L = [X,Y,Z], member(T, L), write(L), nl, fail; true.
[_112,_131,_138]
[_123,_112,_138]
[_123,_131,_112]
    true.

/* Invasive */
?- L = [X,Y,Z], T = T, member(T, L), write(L), nl, fail; true.
[_117,_125,_133]
[_117,_120,_133]
[_117,_125,_120]
    true.

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> Here some test results when testing
> Desktop and not the Web. With Desktop
> Prolog versions I find:
> 
> /* SWI-Prolog 9.3.28 */
> % 7,506,637 inferences, 0.578 CPU in 0.567 seconds
> 
> /* Dogelog Player 1.3.6 for Java (16.08.2025) */
> % Zeit 803 ms, GC 0 ms, Lips 9367988, Uhr 17.08.2025 18:03
> 
> /* Scryer Prolog 0.9.4-592 */
> % CPU time: 0.838s, 7_517_613 inferences
> 
> /* Trealla Prolog 2.82.12 */
> % Time elapsed 2.315s, 11263917 Inferences, 4.866 MLips
> 
> Bye
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> The paper by Shalin and Carlson from 1991
>> did not yet ring a bell. But it suggest testing
>> something with primes and freeze. Lets do
>>
>> primes as suggested but without freeze. SWI-Prolog
>> seems not to the OG of GC. Putting aside Shalin
>> and Carlson, its an typical example of a lot of
>>
>> intermediate results, that can be discarded by
>> a garbage collection. Every candidate number that
>> is not a prime number can be remove from the
>>
>> trail they get unreachable in the first clause
>> of search/3. Besides this obvious unreachability
>> task, I don't have statistics or don't see immediately
>>
>> where large variable instantiation chains are supposed
>> to be created. At least not in my Prolog system, since
>> a result variable is passed without binding it to a
>>
>> local variable, this "shunting" happens independent
>> of neck tests and the "shunting" there. The result variable
>> passing is extremly simple to implement and could
>>
>> be what is effective here besides the reachability thingy.
>> At least the 1 ms GC time in Dogelog Player show that
>> the reachability thingy is the minor effort or optimization
>>
>> to get nice performance:
>>
>>
>> /* WebPL GC */
>> (1846.1ms)
>>
>> /* Dogelog Player 1.3.6 for JavaScript (16.08.2025) */
>> % Zeit 2992 ms, GC 1 ms, Lips 2514202, Uhr 17.08.2025 17:44
>>
>> /* SWI-Prolog WASM */
>> (4204.2ms)
>>
>> /* Trealla Prolog WASM */
>> (23568.9ms)
>>
>> The test code was:
>>
>> test :-
>>     len(L, 1000),
>>     primes(L, _).
>>
>> primes([], 1).
>> primes([J|L], J) :-
>>     primes(L, I),
>>     K is I+1,
>>     search(L, K, J).
>>
>> search(L, I, J) :-
>>     mem(X, L),
>>     I mod X =:= 0, !,
>>     K is I+1,
>>     search(L, K, J).
>> search(_, I, I).
>>
>> mem(X, [X|_]).
>> mem(X, [_|Y]) :-
>>     mem(X, Y).
>>
>> len([], 0) :- !.
>> len([_|L], N) :-
>>     N > 0,
>>     M is N-1,
>>     len(L, M).
>>
>> Bye
> 

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

#15655 — Type systems for non-deterministic concurrency [Amir Pnueli] (Was: Does Variable Age make Sense? [Prolog Unification])

Hi,

Probably blinded by some academic remoteness
from the real world, some people really believe
nonsense like the following:

Deterministic Concurrency - Edward Lee
deterministic models as a central part of the engineering toolkit
https://icfp26.sigplan.org/track/icfp-2026-icfp-keynotes#event-overview

But hey Aristoteles present us already with
modal logic to talk about the future. So
if I have a process calculus, with expressions

π, that capture all my processes of interest,
I can have a modal logic of with modal operators
[π] and <π> that give necessity and possibility,

the simplest first order bootstrapped types are:

Product Type:
A -> [π]B

Sum Type:
A /\ <π>B

So we need more than only a ->π type? But even
with two types, is there an easy equivalent of
Curry Howard isomorphism?

In contrast Amir Pnueli's 1977 system of temporal
logic, another variant of modal logic sharing many
common features with dynamic logic, differs from all
of the above-mentioned logics by being what Pnueli
has characterized as an "endogenous" logic,
the others being "exogenous" logics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_logic_%28modal_logic%29

The Sea Battle and the Master Argument
Aristotle and Diodorus Cronus on the Metaphysics of the Future
https://www.degruyterbrill.com/de/document/doi/10.1515/9783110866346/html

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> The WebPL shunting experiment still resonates. Dogelog
> Players assumption is implicit shunting through
> unification variable bind preferences, derived
> 
> from how unification is called. So I rearranged
> the implementation of member/2 a little bit, and
> now I get, a less invasive version, doesn't modify L:
> 
> /* Dogelog Player 2.1.5 Preview */
> 
> /* Not Invasive */
> ?- T = T, L = [X,Y,Z], member(T, L), write(L), nl, fail; true.
> [_0, _1, _2]
> [_0, _1, _2]
> [_0, _1, _2]
> true.
> 
> /* Not Invasive */
> ?- L = [X,Y,Z], T = T, member(T, L), write(L), nl, fail; true.
> [_3, _4, _5]
> [_3, _4, _5]
> [_3, _4, _5]
> true.
> 
> We can compare with SWI-Prolog:
> 
> /* SWI-Prolog 10.1.1 */
> /* Invasive */
> ?- T = T, L = [X,Y,Z], member(T, L), write(L), nl, fail; true.
> [_13280,_13294,_13300]
> [_13288,_13280,_13300]
> [_13288,_13294,_13280]
> true.
> 
> /* Not Invasive */
> ?- L = [X,Y,Z], T = T, member(T, L), write(L), nl, fail; true.
> [_18762,_18768,_18774]
> [_18762,_18768,_18774]
> [_18762,_18768,_18774]
> true.
> 
> And the result for Scryer Prolog:
> 
> /* Scryer Prolog 0.10 */
> /* Invasive */
> ?- T = T, L = [X,Y,Z], member(T, L), write(L), nl, fail; true.
> [_112,_131,_138]
> [_123,_112,_138]
> [_123,_131,_112]
>     true.
> 
> /* Invasive */
> ?- L = [X,Y,Z], T = T, member(T, L), write(L), nl, fail; true.
> [_117,_125,_133]
> [_117,_120,_133]
> [_117,_125,_120]
>     true.
> 
> Bye
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Here some test results when testing
>> Desktop and not the Web. With Desktop
>> Prolog versions I find:
>>
>> /* SWI-Prolog 9.3.28 */
>> % 7,506,637 inferences, 0.578 CPU in 0.567 seconds
>>
>> /* Dogelog Player 1.3.6 for Java (16.08.2025) */
>> % Zeit 803 ms, GC 0 ms, Lips 9367988, Uhr 17.08.2025 18:03
>>
>> /* Scryer Prolog 0.9.4-592 */
>> % CPU time: 0.838s, 7_517_613 inferences
>>
>> /* Trealla Prolog 2.82.12 */
>> % Time elapsed 2.315s, 11263917 Inferences, 4.866 MLips
>>
>> Bye
>>
>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> The paper by Shalin and Carlson from 1991
>>> did not yet ring a bell. But it suggest testing
>>> something with primes and freeze. Lets do
>>>
>>> primes as suggested but without freeze. SWI-Prolog
>>> seems not to the OG of GC. Putting aside Shalin
>>> and Carlson, its an typical example of a lot of
>>>
>>> intermediate results, that can be discarded by
>>> a garbage collection. Every candidate number that
>>> is not a prime number can be remove from the
>>>
>>> trail they get unreachable in the first clause
>>> of search/3. Besides this obvious unreachability
>>> task, I don't have statistics or don't see immediately
>>>
>>> where large variable instantiation chains are supposed
>>> to be created. At least not in my Prolog system, since
>>> a result variable is passed without binding it to a
>>>
>>> local variable, this "shunting" happens independent
>>> of neck tests and the "shunting" there. The result variable
>>> passing is extremly simple to implement and could
>>>
>>> be what is effective here besides the reachability thingy.
>>> At least the 1 ms GC time in Dogelog Player show that
>>> the reachability thingy is the minor effort or optimization
>>>
>>> to get nice performance:
>>>
>>>
>>> /* WebPL GC */
>>> (1846.1ms)
>>>
>>> /* Dogelog Player 1.3.6 for JavaScript (16.08.2025) */
>>> % Zeit 2992 ms, GC 1 ms, Lips 2514202, Uhr 17.08.2025 17:44
>>>
>>> /* SWI-Prolog WASM */
>>> (4204.2ms)
>>>
>>> /* Trealla Prolog WASM */
>>> (23568.9ms)
>>>
>>> The test code was:
>>>
>>> test :-
>>>     len(L, 1000),
>>>     primes(L, _).
>>>
>>> primes([], 1).
>>> primes([J|L], J) :-
>>>     primes(L, I),
>>>     K is I+1,
>>>     search(L, K, J).
>>>
>>> search(L, I, J) :-
>>>     mem(X, L),
>>>     I mod X =:= 0, !,
>>>     K is I+1,
>>>     search(L, K, J).
>>> search(_, I, I).
>>>
>>> mem(X, [X|_]).
>>> mem(X, [_|Y]) :-
>>>     mem(X, Y).
>>>
>>> len([], 0) :- !.
>>> len([_|L], N) :-
>>>     N > 0,
>>>     M is N-1,
>>>     len(L, M).
>>>
>>> Bye
>>
> 

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

#15656 — Robin Milners fickle gives non-determinism in practice [Parallel π-WAM] (Was: Type systems for non-deterministic concurrency [Amir Pnueli])

Hi,

Hi take Robin Milners fickle:

?- emulate((between(1,2,Y),in(X),out(Y))).
: 0
1
: 0
2
fail.

If I use NUM=3, number of logical threads,
and common input [0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0].

I might get this common output:

[1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2]

Or this common output:

[1, 1, 2, 2, 1, 2]

Or this common output:

[1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2]

What else? Did I miss some case?

Can be seen on GPU and CPU backend, depending
on launch parameters. (*)

Bye

If logical threads are executed together in
work groups, certain guarantees of determinism
might hold. But modern GPUs usually support

multiple independent work groups, also my CPU
backend does support a notion of multiple
independent work groups. So that the determinism

guarantees only hold inside the work group.

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> Probably blinded by some academic remoteness
> from the real world, some people really believe
> nonsense like the following:
> 
> Deterministic Concurrency - Edward Lee
> deterministic models as a central part of the engineering toolkit
> https://icfp26.sigplan.org/track/icfp-2026-icfp-keynotes#event-overview
> 
> But hey Aristoteles present us already with
> modal logic to talk about the future. So
> if I have a process calculus, with expressions
> 
> π, that capture all my processes of interest,
> I can have a modal logic of with modal operators
> [π] and <π> that give necessity and possibility,
> 
> the simplest first order bootstrapped types are:
> 
> Product Type:
> A -> [π]B
> 
> Sum Type:
> A /\ <π>B
> 
> So we need more than only a ->π type? But even
> with two types, is there an easy equivalent of
> Curry Howard isomorphism?
> 
> In contrast Amir Pnueli's 1977 system of temporal
> logic, another variant of modal logic sharing many
> common features with dynamic logic, differs from all
> of the above-mentioned logics by being what Pnueli
> has characterized as an "endogenous" logic,
> the others being "exogenous" logics.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_logic_%28modal_logic%29
> 
> The Sea Battle and the Master Argument
> Aristotle and Diodorus Cronus on the Metaphysics of the Future
> https://www.degruyterbrill.com/de/document/doi/10.1515/9783110866346/html
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> The WebPL shunting experiment still resonates. Dogelog
>> Players assumption is implicit shunting through
>> unification variable bind preferences, derived
>>
>> from how unification is called. So I rearranged
>> the implementation of member/2 a little bit, and
>> now I get, a less invasive version, doesn't modify L:
>>
>> /* Dogelog Player 2.1.5 Preview */
>>
>> /* Not Invasive */
>> ?- T = T, L = [X,Y,Z], member(T, L), write(L), nl, fail; true.
>> [_0, _1, _2]
>> [_0, _1, _2]
>> [_0, _1, _2]
>> true.
>>
>> /* Not Invasive */
>> ?- L = [X,Y,Z], T = T, member(T, L), write(L), nl, fail; true.
>> [_3, _4, _5]
>> [_3, _4, _5]
>> [_3, _4, _5]
>> true.
>>
>> We can compare with SWI-Prolog:
>>
>> /* SWI-Prolog 10.1.1 */
>> /* Invasive */
>> ?- T = T, L = [X,Y,Z], member(T, L), write(L), nl, fail; true.
>> [_13280,_13294,_13300]
>> [_13288,_13280,_13300]
>> [_13288,_13294,_13280]
>> true.
>>
>> /* Not Invasive */
>> ?- L = [X,Y,Z], T = T, member(T, L), write(L), nl, fail; true.
>> [_18762,_18768,_18774]
>> [_18762,_18768,_18774]
>> [_18762,_18768,_18774]
>> true.
>>
>> And the result for Scryer Prolog:
>>
>> /* Scryer Prolog 0.10 */
>> /* Invasive */
>> ?- T = T, L = [X,Y,Z], member(T, L), write(L), nl, fail; true.
>> [_112,_131,_138]
>> [_123,_112,_138]
>> [_123,_131,_112]
>>     true.
>>
>> /* Invasive */
>> ?- L = [X,Y,Z], T = T, member(T, L), write(L), nl, fail; true.
>> [_117,_125,_133]
>> [_117,_120,_133]
>> [_117,_125,_120]
>>     true.
>>
>> Bye
>>
>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Here some test results when testing
>>> Desktop and not the Web. With Desktop
>>> Prolog versions I find:
>>>
>>> /* SWI-Prolog 9.3.28 */
>>> % 7,506,637 inferences, 0.578 CPU in 0.567 seconds
>>>
>>> /* Dogelog Player 1.3.6 for Java (16.08.2025) */
>>> % Zeit 803 ms, GC 0 ms, Lips 9367988, Uhr 17.08.2025 18:03
>>>
>>> /* Scryer Prolog 0.9.4-592 */
>>> % CPU time: 0.838s, 7_517_613 inferences
>>>
>>> /* Trealla Prolog 2.82.12 */
>>> % Time elapsed 2.315s, 11263917 Inferences, 4.866 MLips
>>>
>>> Bye
>>>
>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> The paper by Shalin and Carlson from 1991
>>>> did not yet ring a bell. But it suggest testing
>>>> something with primes and freeze. Lets do
>>>>
>>>> primes as suggested but without freeze. SWI-Prolog
>>>> seems not to the OG of GC. Putting aside Shalin
>>>> and Carlson, its an typical example of a lot of
>>>>
>>>> intermediate results, that can be discarded by
>>>> a garbage collection. Every candidate number that
>>>> is not a prime number can be remove from the
>>>>
>>>> trail they get unreachable in the first clause
>>>> of search/3. Besides this obvious unreachability
>>>> task, I don't have statistics or don't see immediately
>>>>
>>>> where large variable instantiation chains are supposed
>>>> to be created. At least not in my Prolog system, since
>>>> a result variable is passed without binding it to a
>>>>
>>>> local variable, this "shunting" happens independent
>>>> of neck tests and the "shunting" there. The result variable
>>>> passing is extremly simple to implement and could
>>>>
>>>> be what is effective here besides the reachability thingy.
>>>> At least the 1 ms GC time in Dogelog Player show that
>>>> the reachability thingy is the minor effort or optimization
>>>>
>>>> to get nice performance:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> /* WebPL GC */
>>>> (1846.1ms)
>>>>
>>>> /* Dogelog Player 1.3.6 for JavaScript (16.08.2025) */
>>>> % Zeit 2992 ms, GC 1 ms, Lips 2514202, Uhr 17.08.2025 17:44
>>>>
>>>> /* SWI-Prolog WASM */
>>>> (4204.2ms)
>>>>
>>>> /* Trealla Prolog WASM */
>>>> (23568.9ms)
>>>>
>>>> The test code was:
>>>>
>>>> test :-
>>>>     len(L, 1000),
>>>>     primes(L, _).
>>>>
>>>> primes([], 1).
>>>> primes([J|L], J) :-
>>>>     primes(L, I),
>>>>     K is I+1,
>>>>     search(L, K, J).
>>>>
>>>> search(L, I, J) :-
>>>>     mem(X, L),
>>>>     I mod X =:= 0, !,
>>>>     K is I+1,
>>>>     search(L, K, J).
>>>> search(_, I, I).
>>>>
>>>> mem(X, [X|_]).
>>>> mem(X, [_|Y]) :-
>>>>     mem(X, Y).
>>>>
>>>> len([], 0) :- !.
>>>> len([_|L], N) :-
>>>>     N > 0,
>>>>     M is N-1,
>>>>     len(L, M).
>>>>
>>>> Bye
>>>
>>
> 

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

#14989 — Sleepy Joe and the Poor South (Local AI Emacs Mode) (Re: Prolog Education Group clueless about the AI Boom?)

Hi,

Breaking News from the French conference of
philisophy professors in education. They launched
the Local AI Emacs Mode initiative to bring

new technology to even most remote corners
of the earth, such as the Poor South, i.e.
Spain, Brasil, Argentinia, etc..

It consists of:

- **org.joe:** This is a numpy library that
   can solve large band matrices via storing
   them on floppy disk. One speaker of the
   philosophy conference said, this is ideal
   to demonstrate algorithms such as Stable
   Diffusion, it might take a month though
   to generate an image but it servers its
   educatinal goals for Low-Resource teaching.

- **org.sleepy:** This is a sympy library that
   can also do natural deduction. It uses
   very natural communication means such as
   E-mail. Its especially useful together with
   org.joe, since it will notify the user when
   to change a floppy disk via E-mail.

- SWI-Prolog integration of Local AI:
   org.joe has a R binding, which has SWI-Prolog
   binding, which has a Janus Python binding, which
   has a JSON web server binding, etc.. etc.. And
   org.sleepy can be controlled via their brand new
   XPCE, the Emacs that runs in a Mac/Windows Window.
   But most Low-Resource teachers and students will
   not be able to use it, since they have only
   an ASCII terminal console on a 32-bit Unix.

Bye

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]

#14990 — Beyond Sleepy Joe around the World (Was: Sleepy Joe and the Poor South (Local AI Emacs Mode))

Hi,

This is information provided by ChatGPT.
I asked whether there will be similar initiatives
like the MZ-80k back then in Japan, but for Local AI?

In Education the Local AI, locally on your device idea,
has probably not yet arrived. But there are AI initiatives:

- Countries with Active AI Integration or Guidance in Education:
Canada, USA, China, UAE, Australia, Some Europe, etc..
https://www.sourcesecurity.com/img/news/920/lithuania-s-ai-in-schools-nexos-ai-initiative-920x533.jpg
- People’s Republic of China (e.g., Hangzhou),
AI education from early age
China’s Hangzhou makes AI classes compulsory in schools
amid nationwide push. Local governments are beginning to
take action after Beijing said it wants all primary and
secondary students to study the advanced tech
https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3323082/chinas-hangzhou-makes-ai-classes-compulsory-schools-amid-nationwide-push
- Estonia Announces A Groundbreaking National Initiative: AI Leap 
Programme to Bring AI Tools to All Schools
Estonia, one of the world's most advanced digital societies,
announced today an ambitious nationwide artificial intelligence 
education program called AI Leap 2025 (TI-Hüpe 2025 in Estonian).
  The initiative, planned to be launched on 1 September 2025, will 
provide students and teachers with free access to the world's
leading AI applications and the necessary skills to use them
effectively in learning, marking the next chapter in Estonia's
digital society journey.
https://www.hm.ee/en/news/estonia-announces-groundbreaking-national-initiative-ai-leap-programme-bring-ai-tools-all

But there are chances the Local AI, locally on your device,
becomes even available for Low-Resource regions:

- Likely trends by 2026: AI-capable chips everywhere,
Cheaper edge AI hardware, Improved efficiency,
Education-specific variants, Local models catching up.
- In other words, by late 2026, the dream of a
“new MZ-80K era” — affordable, compact AI learning
machines for every classroom — could be technically
and economically feasible.

In Miniature you have already Local AI on your smartphones.

Bye

P.S.: Here is the chat:

mz-80k education initiative
https://chatgpt.com/share/6914648d-e934-8013-9388-3bcf40f753a8

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> Breaking News from the French conference of
> philisophy professors in education. They launched
> the Local AI Emacs Mode initiative to bring
> 
> new technology to even most remote corners
> of the earth, such as the Poor South, i.e.
> Spain, Brasil, Argentinia, etc..
> 
> It consists of:
> 
> - **org.joe:** This is a numpy library that
>    can solve large band matrices via storing
>    them on floppy disk. One speaker of the
>    philosophy conference said, this is ideal
>    to demonstrate algorithms such as Stable
>    Diffusion, it might take a month though
>    to generate an image but it servers its
>    educatinal goals for Low-Resource teaching.
> 
> - **org.sleepy:** This is a sympy library that
>    can also do natural deduction. It uses
>    very natural communication means such as
>    E-mail. Its especially useful together with
>    org.joe, since it will notify the user when
>    to change a floppy disk via E-mail.
> 
> - SWI-Prolog integration of Local AI:
>    org.joe has a R binding, which has SWI-Prolog
>    binding, which has a Janus Python binding, which
>    has a JSON web server binding, etc.. etc.. And
>    org.sleepy can be controlled via their brand new
>    XPCE, the Emacs that runs in a Mac/Windows Window.
>    But most Low-Resource teachers and students will
>    not be able to use it, since they have only
>    an ASCII terminal console on a 32-bit Unix.
> 
> Bye
> 
> 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]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web