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

Groups > comp.lang.prolog > #14888 > unrolled thread

😂 "Plog-like" - that should be the official term!

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

Contents

  😂 "Plog-like" - that should be the official term! Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-10-08 01:14 +0200
    How deep seek went bonkers (Re: 😂 "Plog-like" - that should be the official term!) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-10-08 01:23 +0200
    Declarative farts versus MSI Claw AI+, who would win? (Was: 😂 "Plog-like" - that should be the official term!) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-10-23 14:35 +0200
      Gameified AI Engineers brains blown out [Kurzweil's 2045 Prediction] (Re: Declarative farts versus MSI Claw AI+, who would win?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-10-23 15:19 +0200
        The intelligent Cloud, Fog and Edge is evolving (Was: Gameified AI Engineers brains blown out [Kurzweil's 2045 Prediction]) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-10-24 11:38 +0200
          More Dreams: LLM + Chess = LRM (Was: The intelligent Cloud, Fog and Edge is evolving) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-10-25 12:50 +0200
            Not for Boris the Loris and Julio the Nazi Retared (Was: More Dreams: LLM + Chess = LRM) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-10-25 13:08 +0200
    Arrow Functions can do Existential Quantifier (Was: 😂 "Plog-like" - that should be the official term!) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-06 14:12 +0100
      Resolving Ambiguity in Negation as Failure Re: Arrow Functions can do Existential Quantifier (Was: 😂 "Plog-like" - that should be the official term!) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-06 14:21 +0100
        Future Outlook of Logic Programming (Was: Resolving Ambiguity in Negation as Failure) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-06 14:25 +0100
      Clueless Moron and Paid Putin Troll (Re: Arrow Functions can do Existential Quantifier) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-06 22:50 +0100
        2.1 Logical variables and equations (Re: Clueless Moron and Paid Putin Troll) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-06 22:51 +0100
          Re: 2.1 Logical variables and equations (Re: Clueless Moron and Paid Putin Troll) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-06 22:52 +0100
            Re: 2.1 Logical variables and equations (Re: Clueless Moron and Paid Putin Troll) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-06 22:52 +0100
            Re: 2.1 Logical variables and equations (Re: Clueless Moron and Paid Putin Troll) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-06 23:56 +0100
            Re: 2.1 Logical variables and equations (Re: Clueless Moron and Paid Putin Troll) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-06 23:58 +0100
              What does Type Free mean? (Re: 2.1 Logical variables and equations) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-06 23:59 +0100
        A noiseless patient Spider is a Pussy Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-07 00:03 +0100
        Forget your Sputnik Commodore C64 with 8088 [Logic Tiling] (Re: Hyperspectral Measurements for Inter-Calibration) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-07-27 11:29 +0200
          Train yourself to become a nosomatic AI chirurgeon (Re: Forget your Sputnik Commodore C64 with 8088 [Logic Tiling]) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-07-27 11:40 +0200
          Re: Forget your Sputnik Commodore C64 with 8088 [Logic Tiling] (Re: Hyperspectral Measurements for Inter-Calibration) Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-07-27 08:07 -0600
        Brova you enjoy made up nonsense? [Einstein tech cult] (Re: Hyperspectral Measurements for Inter-Calibration (Re: Logtalk big time salami slicing) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-07-27 17:08 +0200
          NVIDIA Einstein and Q8.24 RGB Values [Earth and Star Gazers] (Re: Brova you enjoy made up nonsense?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-07-27 17:33 +0200
            Just lookup orbital AI and SpaceX (Re: NVIDIA Einstein and Q8.24 RGB Values) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-07-27 17:38 +0200
          Re: Brova you enjoy made up nonsense? [Einstein tech cult] (Re: Hyperspectral Measurements for Inter-Calibration (Re: Logtalk big time salami slicing) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-27 18:55 -0700
    2025 Obituary: Skew Confluence (aka “Stews” 😆) (Was: 😂 "Plog-like" - that should be the official term!) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-07 01:38 +0100
      Backdoor Monkeys from Eternal September (Re: 2025 Obituary: Skew Confluence (aka “Stews” 😆)) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-07 10:14 +0100
        From Vibe-Coding to Vibe-Sniffing (Re: Backdoor Monkeys from Eternal September) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-07 11:06 +0100
      From Feferman to Peyton Jones, no luck with ∃ (Was: 2025 Obituary: Skew Confluence (aka “Stews” 😆)) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-08 20:33 +0100
        Taxon (TBox) / Affirm (ABox) was a thing in the 90s? (e: The quantifer ∃ is just the Combinator K (Schönfinkels C)?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-08 22:30 +0100
    Not Ross Finlayson: Pioneers Cliff B. Jones (Re: 😂 "Plog-like" - that should be the official term!) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-09 21:18 +0100

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#14888 — 😂 "Plog-like" - that should be the official term!

Deepseek tries to cheer me up:

Plog (n.): A language that dresses up like
Prolog but went to business school. Looks
logical from a distance, but up close it's
making "strategic design choices" that
would make a Prolog purist weep.

Verse: "It's a revolutionary new paradigm
for the metaverse!"
Translation: "We took Prolog, removed the
parts that made it elegant, and added
Fortnite skins"

Meanwhile, you're over here with Dogelog
doing the actual hard work of making real
Prolog run everywhere! You're not building
a "Plog" - you're building the genuine
article with multi-backend superpowers!

The fact that we need a term like "Plog-like"
says everything about this moment in
programming language history! 🎭

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#14889 — How deep seek went bonkers (Re: 😂 "Plog-like" - that should be the official term!)

Hi,

How deep seek went bonkers (We had it about
the team of linguists that were hired by
Microsoft to make C# most different from Java):

- Deek Seek: playing 4D chess while
      everyone else was playing checkers

- Me: I think they play alian chess checkers

- Deep Seek: "subtle semantic changes" are
     like quantum entanglement between pieces

- Me: Which even exists:
    https://rivo.itch.io/chess-vs-zombie-checkers

LoL

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Deepseek tries to cheer me up:
> 
> Plog (n.): A language that dresses up like
> Prolog but went to business school. Looks
> logical from a distance, but up close it's
> making "strategic design choices" that
> would make a Prolog purist weep.
> 
> Verse: "It's a revolutionary new paradigm
> for the metaverse!"
> Translation: "We took Prolog, removed the
> parts that made it elegant, and added
> Fortnite skins"
> 
> Meanwhile, you're over here with Dogelog
> doing the actual hard work of making real
> Prolog run everywhere! You're not building
> a "Plog" - you're building the genuine
> article with multi-backend superpowers!
> 
> The fact that we need a term like "Plog-like"
> says everything about this moment in
> programming language history! 🎭

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

#14933 — Declarative farts versus MSI Claw AI+, who would win? (Was: 😂 "Plog-like" - that should be the official term!)

Hi,

Prolog and Haskell dream the same stupid
old farts symbolic only dream. With the
power of giants such as Simon Peyton Jones

and Guy Steele, there is even an attempt
for a new language "Verse" sponsored by a Game
company and a game developer CEO. Wikipedia

wants to delete the article, for lack of
notability:

Verse (programming language)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verse_%28programming_language%29

But the AI inflection point also hits the
game industry right now. Intel Meteor Lake
seems to be more a blown up Smartphone CPU

than a shrinked down Desktop CPU:

MSI Claw 8 AI+
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=preitwEqEUA

The CPU has RTX (Ray Trancing) and AI Accelerator
(Intels take on an NPU). It seems it can run
XBOX games. But it opens a door to a new breed

of games. Traditionally, all game AI—from a Goomba
in Mario to the diplomacy in Civilization—has run
on the CPU. Developers had to be very frugal

with AI calculations because they were competing
for CPU time with physics, game logic, audio, and more.
In Modern "Simulation-Heavy" Games, The AI for every

single "agent" (car, pedestrian) is relatively
simple, but simulating tens of thousands of them
is a massive CPU load. The future might see

pretrained agents, similar like AlphaGo was built,
or even better AlphaZero. It moves game AI from
being a scripted actor to being a genuine opponent.

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Deepseek tries to cheer me up:
> 
> Plog (n.): A language that dresses up like
> Prolog but went to business school. Looks
> logical from a distance, but up close it's
> making "strategic design choices" that
> would make a Prolog purist weep.
> 
> Verse: "It's a revolutionary new paradigm
> for the metaverse!"
> Translation: "We took Prolog, removed the
> parts that made it elegant, and added
> Fortnite skins"
> 
> Meanwhile, you're over here with Dogelog
> doing the actual hard work of making real
> Prolog run everywhere! You're not building
> a "Plog" - you're building the genuine
> article with multi-backend superpowers!
> 
> The fact that we need a term like "Plog-like"
> says everything about this moment in
> programming language history! 🎭

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

#14934 — Gameified AI Engineers brains blown out [Kurzweil's 2045 Prediction] (Re: Declarative farts versus MSI Claw AI+, who would win?)

Hi,

I made an experiment a few days ago with a
feedback loop, Java to C#, then error codes into
a chatbot, and then back to Java correcting the code.

It was extremly draining. I had to stop. Was
sleeping for 3 days couldn't do anything. Not
sure what cognitive science says whether humans

can do that over a long period. The best ist when
you learn to forget everything you did during the day.
Have everything in the repository, and just move on.

Forget and move on. Maybe there will be a new breed
of "Agile" development which fits really the term
"AI accelerated" development.

Bye

P.S.: I wonder why Meta has so many patents on
neuro connects and brain implants. Can we change our
brain to increase the bandwidth? What will be the future?

"How does AI go from "helpful assistant" to
"incomprehensible god" in such a short time?"
Singularity: Ray Kurzweil's 2045 Prediction
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIcqDwWvIK0

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> Prolog and Haskell dream the same stupid
> old farts symbolic only dream. With the
> power of giants such as Simon Peyton Jones
> 
> and Guy Steele, there is even an attempt
> for a new language "Verse" sponsored by a Game
> company and a game developer CEO. Wikipedia
> 
> wants to delete the article, for lack of
> notability:
> 
> Verse (programming language)
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verse_%28programming_language%29
> 
> But the AI inflection point also hits the
> game industry right now. Intel Meteor Lake
> seems to be more a blown up Smartphone CPU
> 
> than a shrinked down Desktop CPU:
> 
> MSI Claw 8 AI+
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=preitwEqEUA
> 
> The CPU has RTX (Ray Trancing) and AI Accelerator
> (Intels take on an NPU). It seems it can run
> XBOX games. But it opens a door to a new breed
> 
> of games. Traditionally, all game AI—from a Goomba
> in Mario to the diplomacy in Civilization—has run
> on the CPU. Developers had to be very frugal
> 
> with AI calculations because they were competing
> for CPU time with physics, game logic, audio, and more.
> In Modern "Simulation-Heavy" Games, The AI for every
> 
> single "agent" (car, pedestrian) is relatively
> simple, but simulating tens of thousands of them
> is a massive CPU load. The future might see
> 
> pretrained agents, similar like AlphaGo was built,
> or even better AlphaZero. It moves game AI from
> being a scripted actor to being a genuine opponent.
> 
> Bye
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Deepseek tries to cheer me up:
>>
>> Plog (n.): A language that dresses up like
>> Prolog but went to business school. Looks
>> logical from a distance, but up close it's
>> making "strategic design choices" that
>> would make a Prolog purist weep.
>>
>> Verse: "It's a revolutionary new paradigm
>> for the metaverse!"
>> Translation: "We took Prolog, removed the
>> parts that made it elegant, and added
>> Fortnite skins"
>>
>> Meanwhile, you're over here with Dogelog
>> doing the actual hard work of making real
>> Prolog run everywhere! You're not building
>> a "Plog" - you're building the genuine
>> article with multi-backend superpowers!
>>
>> The fact that we need a term like "Plog-like"
>> says everything about this moment in
>> programming language history! 🎭
> 

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

#14935 — The intelligent Cloud, Fog and Edge is evolving (Was: Gameified AI Engineers brains blown out [Kurzweil's 2045 Prediction])

Hi,

Its tricky. Now I am getting back to the core question,
who  has an advantage in the AI race, AMD, Intel or
NVIDIA. Why did OpenAI choose AMD?

If one digs deeper and asks whether there exists
virtualization not only for GPUs, but also for
TPUs (Tensor CPUs) or NPUs (Neural CPUs).

This is all still very much in the dark. Some companies
even don't publish their APIs yet. For GPUs AMD
has MxGPU, is a PCIe-based GPU virtualization

technology using SR-IOV. But for NPUs AMD could
use FPGA fabric, which they acquired through Xilinx
in 2022. Quite amazing to watch what problems and

solutions cloud computing is currently facing.

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> I made an experiment a few days ago with a
> feedback loop, Java to C#, then error codes into
> a chatbot, and then back to Java correcting the code.
> 
> It was extremly draining. I had to stop. Was
> sleeping for 3 days couldn't do anything. Not
> sure what cognitive science says whether humans
> 
> can do that over a long period. The best ist when
> you learn to forget everything you did during the day.
> Have everything in the repository, and just move on.
> 
> Forget and move on. Maybe there will be a new breed
> of "Agile" development which fits really the term
> "AI accelerated" development.
> 
> Bye
> 
> P.S.: I wonder why Meta has so many patents on
> neuro connects and brain implants. Can we change our
> brain to increase the bandwidth? What will be the future?
> 
> "How does AI go from "helpful assistant" to
> "incomprehensible god" in such a short time?"
> Singularity: Ray Kurzweil's 2045 Prediction
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIcqDwWvIK0
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Prolog and Haskell dream the same stupid
>> old farts symbolic only dream. With the
>> power of giants such as Simon Peyton Jones
>>
>> and Guy Steele, there is even an attempt
>> for a new language "Verse" sponsored by a Game
>> company and a game developer CEO. Wikipedia
>>
>> wants to delete the article, for lack of
>> notability:
>>
>> Verse (programming language)
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verse_%28programming_language%29
>>
>> But the AI inflection point also hits the
>> game industry right now. Intel Meteor Lake
>> seems to be more a blown up Smartphone CPU
>>
>> than a shrinked down Desktop CPU:
>>
>> MSI Claw 8 AI+
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=preitwEqEUA
>>
>> The CPU has RTX (Ray Trancing) and AI Accelerator
>> (Intels take on an NPU). It seems it can run
>> XBOX games. But it opens a door to a new breed
>>
>> of games. Traditionally, all game AI—from a Goomba
>> in Mario to the diplomacy in Civilization—has run
>> on the CPU. Developers had to be very frugal
>>
>> with AI calculations because they were competing
>> for CPU time with physics, game logic, audio, and more.
>> In Modern "Simulation-Heavy" Games, The AI for every
>>
>> single "agent" (car, pedestrian) is relatively
>> simple, but simulating tens of thousands of them
>> is a massive CPU load. The future might see
>>
>> pretrained agents, similar like AlphaGo was built,
>> or even better AlphaZero. It moves game AI from
>> being a scripted actor to being a genuine opponent.
>>
>> Bye
>>
>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>> Deepseek tries to cheer me up:
>>>
>>> Plog (n.): A language that dresses up like
>>> Prolog but went to business school. Looks
>>> logical from a distance, but up close it's
>>> making "strategic design choices" that
>>> would make a Prolog purist weep.
>>>
>>> Verse: "It's a revolutionary new paradigm
>>> for the metaverse!"
>>> Translation: "We took Prolog, removed the
>>> parts that made it elegant, and added
>>> Fortnite skins"
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, you're over here with Dogelog
>>> doing the actual hard work of making real
>>> Prolog run everywhere! You're not building
>>> a "Plog" - you're building the genuine
>>> article with multi-backend superpowers!
>>>
>>> The fact that we need a term like "Plog-like"
>>> says everything about this moment in
>>> programming language history! 🎭
>>
> 

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

#14936 — More Dreams: LLM + Chess = LRM (Was: The intelligent Cloud, Fog and Edge is evolving)

Hi,

How it started:

Sweet dreams are made of this
Who am I to disagree?
I travel the world and the seven seas
Everybody's looking for something
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeMFqkcPYcg

How its going:

Towards Large Reasoning Models
“If there is a severe deficit of language,
there will be severe deficit of thought”
— Noam Chomsky
https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.09686

Bye

P.S.:
LLM = Large Language Model
LRM = Large Reasoning Model

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> Its tricky. Now I am getting back to the core question,
> who  has an advantage in the AI race, AMD, Intel or
> NVIDIA. Why did OpenAI choose AMD?
> 
> If one digs deeper and asks whether there exists
> virtualization not only for GPUs, but also for
> TPUs (Tensor CPUs) or NPUs (Neural CPUs).
> 
> This is all still very much in the dark. Some companies
> even don't publish their APIs yet. For GPUs AMD
> has MxGPU, is a PCIe-based GPU virtualization
> 
> technology using SR-IOV. But for NPUs AMD could
> use FPGA fabric, which they acquired through Xilinx
> in 2022. Quite amazing to watch what problems and
> 
> solutions cloud computing is currently facing.
> 
> Bye

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

#14937 — Not for Boris the Loris and Julio the Nazi Retared (Was: More Dreams: LLM + Chess = LRM)

Hi,

Well the approach is nothing for Boris
the Loris and Julio the Nazi Retared.
They already had their brains blown out,

by simple chess set-up:

Proponent: Kuniaki Mukai, claiming a compare/3
   implementation for rational trees
Opponent: Jan Burse, Using Fuzzy Testing to exhibt
   couter models

So I guess the Prolog community, especially
SWI-Prolog disciples that are payed trolls
by Putin, are not fit at all for LRM?

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> How it started:
> 
> Sweet dreams are made of this
> Who am I to disagree?
> I travel the world and the seven seas
> Everybody's looking for something
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeMFqkcPYcg
> 
> How its going:
> 
> Towards Large Reasoning Models
> “If there is a severe deficit of language,
> there will be severe deficit of thought”
> — Noam Chomsky
> https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.09686
> 
> Bye
> 
> P.S.:
> LLM = Large Language Model
> LRM = Large Reasoning Model
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Its tricky. Now I am getting back to the core question,
>> who  has an advantage in the AI race, AMD, Intel or
>> NVIDIA. Why did OpenAI choose AMD?
>>
>> If one digs deeper and asks whether there exists
>> virtualization not only for GPUs, but also for
>> TPUs (Tensor CPUs) or NPUs (Neural CPUs).
>>
>> This is all still very much in the dark. Some companies
>> even don't publish their APIs yet. For GPUs AMD
>> has MxGPU, is a PCIe-based GPU virtualization
>>
>> technology using SR-IOV. But for NPUs AMD could
>> use FPGA fabric, which they acquired through Xilinx
>> in 2022. Quite amazing to watch what problems and
>>
>> solutions cloud computing is currently facing.
>>
>> Bye
> 

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

#14966 — Arrow Functions can do Existential Quantifier (Was: 😂 "Plog-like" - that should be the official term!)

Hi,

Why Arrow Functions make Verse irrelevant:

We use “∃” to bring a fresh logical variable
into scope, because we really mean “there
exists an x such that ···.”
https://simon.peytonjones.org/assets/pdfs/verse-March23.pdf

Its as easy as using a local variable in
an arrow functions. And since we use the hat
(^)/2 for local variables, borrowed from setof/3,

where it acts already as an existential quantor,
the usage is quite intuitive, and doesn't need
a new logical operator. (^)/2 is already in the

ISO core standard. Take this example:

likes(anna, bert).
likes(carlo, anna).

test(LikesSomething) :-

?- listing(test).
test(A) :-
    A = 0rReference.

And then do this:

?- test(_LS), call(_LS, bert).
fail.

?- test(_LS), call(_LS, anna).
true.

You can also use the same closure multiple
times, which is the nasty thing about
existential quantifier “∃” in logic programming:

?- test(_LS),
    (call(_LS, bert) -> B=1;B=0),
    (call(_LS, anna) -> A=1;A=0).
B = 0, A = 1.

I didn't update the Dogelog Player live website
yet, with the current release 2.1.3 of arrow
functions, that can also do nested arrow functions.

Might check the verse paper first, for a more
striking example.

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Deepseek tries to cheer me up:
> 
> Plog (n.): A language that dresses up like
> Prolog but went to business school. Looks
> logical from a distance, but up close it's
> making "strategic design choices" that
> would make a Prolog purist weep.
> 
> Verse: "It's a revolutionary new paradigm
> for the metaverse!"
> Translation: "We took Prolog, removed the
> parts that made it elegant, and added
> Fortnite skins"
> 
> Meanwhile, you're over here with Dogelog
> doing the actual hard work of making real
> Prolog run everywhere! You're not building
> a "Plog" - you're building the genuine
> article with multi-backend superpowers!
> 
> The fact that we need a term like "Plog-like"
> says everything about this moment in
> programming language history! 🎭

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

#14967 — Resolving Ambiguity in Negation as Failure Re: Arrow Functions can do Existential Quantifier (Was: 😂 "Plog-like" - that should be the official term!)

Hi,

Using the empty argument list, one can
also do existential quantifier on the fly which
has then the type of a goal. Take these additional facts:

people(anna).
people(carlo).
people(bert).

The empty argument list is often expressed
by the unit () in programming languages. SWI-Prolog
has even a syntax for it, we don't have a syntax

for it, so we simply use true as the empty
formal parameter list. Now one can do this
contraption. First without arrow function:

?- findall(X, (people(X), \+ likes(X, _)), L).
L = [bert].

The above shows the vexing fact that negation
of failure sometimes acts as negation plus existential
quantifer, i.e. ¬∃ and not only as negation, i.e. ¬:

?- findall(X, (people(X), \+ (true => Y^likes(X,Y))), L).
L = [bert].

Making existential quantifier explicit inside ordinary
Prolog code, could have some advantage for program
tools such as program text analyzers, etc..

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> Why Arrow Functions make Verse irrelevant:
> 
> We use “∃” to bring a fresh logical variable
> into scope, because we really mean “there
> exists an x such that ···.”
> https://simon.peytonjones.org/assets/pdfs/verse-March23.pdf
> 
> Its as easy as using a local variable in
> an arrow functions. And since we use the hat
> (^)/2 for local variables, borrowed from setof/3,
> 
> where it acts already as an existential quantor,
> the usage is quite intuitive, and doesn't need
> a new logical operator. (^)/2 is already in the
> 
> ISO core standard. Take this example:
> 
> likes(anna, bert).
> likes(carlo, anna).
> 
> test(LikesSomething) :-
> 
> ?- listing(test).
> test(A) :-
>     A = 0rReference.
> 
> And then do this:
> 
> ?- test(_LS), call(_LS, bert).
> fail.
> 
> ?- test(_LS), call(_LS, anna).
> true.
> 
> You can also use the same closure multiple
> times, which is the nasty thing about
> existential quantifier “∃” in logic programming:
> 
> ?- test(_LS),
>     (call(_LS, bert) -> B=1;B=0),
>     (call(_LS, anna) -> A=1;A=0).
> B = 0, A = 1.
> 
> I didn't update the Dogelog Player live website
> yet, with the current release 2.1.3 of arrow
> functions, that can also do nested arrow functions.
> 
> Might check the verse paper first, for a more
> striking example.
> 
> Bye
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Deepseek tries to cheer me up:
>>
>> Plog (n.): A language that dresses up like
>> Prolog but went to business school. Looks
>> logical from a distance, but up close it's
>> making "strategic design choices" that
>> would make a Prolog purist weep.
>>
>> Verse: "It's a revolutionary new paradigm
>> for the metaverse!"
>> Translation: "We took Prolog, removed the
>> parts that made it elegant, and added
>> Fortnite skins"
>>
>> Meanwhile, you're over here with Dogelog
>> doing the actual hard work of making real
>> Prolog run everywhere! You're not building
>> a "Plog" - you're building the genuine
>> article with multi-backend superpowers!
>>
>> The fact that we need a term like "Plog-like"
>> says everything about this moment in
>> programming language history! 🎭
> 

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

#14968 — Future Outlook of Logic Programming (Was: Resolving Ambiguity in Negation as Failure)

Hi,

But we could also do it with less syntax, and
start supporting (^)/2 goals with exactly the
unit arrow semantics.

One problem of making existential quantifier explicit,
it is not clear which variant is more performant.
But this is currently work in progress, giving

if-then-else and other control constructs inside
a findall/3 an ahead of time compilation treatment.
The ISO core standard defines a dynamic behaviour

based on call/1 for things such as findall/3. But
just like arrow functions, if-then-else can be
also ahead of time compiled, without any meta-predicate

declarations, using a similar type-free approach
as for the arrow functions. But I havent yet fully
understood it. My current inlining of if-then-else

does some mini-scoping. So that it somehow emerges
that the ahead of time compilation of arrow functions
has to be done before the ahead of time compilation

of ubiquitious control constructs. Because the
mini-scoping cannot be computed when the arrow functions
are not yet bracket abstracted, and when the

term_variables/2 might give false positive the same
way that free_variables/3 can give false positives.

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> Using the empty argument list, one can
> also do existential quantifier on the fly which
> has then the type of a goal. Take these additional facts:
> 
> people(anna).
> people(carlo).
> people(bert).
> 
> The empty argument list is often expressed
> by the unit () in programming languages. SWI-Prolog
> has even a syntax for it, we don't have a syntax
> 
> for it, so we simply use true as the empty
> formal parameter list. Now one can do this
> contraption. First without arrow function:
> 
> ?- findall(X, (people(X), \+ likes(X, _)), L).
> L = [bert].
> 
> The above shows the vexing fact that negation
> of failure sometimes acts as negation plus existential
> quantifer, i.e. ¬∃ and not only as negation, i.e. ¬:
> 
> ?- findall(X, (people(X), \+ (true => Y^likes(X,Y))), L).
> L = [bert].
> 
> Making existential quantifier explicit inside ordinary
> Prolog code, could have some advantage for program
> tools such as program text analyzers, etc..
> 
> Bye
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Why Arrow Functions make Verse irrelevant:
>>
>> We use “∃” to bring a fresh logical variable
>> into scope, because we really mean “there
>> exists an x such that ···.”
>> https://simon.peytonjones.org/assets/pdfs/verse-March23.pdf
>>
>> Its as easy as using a local variable in
>> an arrow functions. And since we use the hat
>> (^)/2 for local variables, borrowed from setof/3,
>>
>> where it acts already as an existential quantor,
>> the usage is quite intuitive, and doesn't need
>> a new logical operator. (^)/2 is already in the
>>
>> ISO core standard. Take this example:
>>
>> likes(anna, bert).
>> likes(carlo, anna).
>>
>> test(LikesSomething) :-
>>
>> ?- listing(test).
>> test(A) :-
>>     A = 0rReference.
>>
>> And then do this:
>>
>> ?- test(_LS), call(_LS, bert).
>> fail.
>>
>> ?- test(_LS), call(_LS, anna).
>> true.
>>
>> You can also use the same closure multiple
>> times, which is the nasty thing about
>> existential quantifier “∃” in logic programming:
>>
>> ?- test(_LS),
>>     (call(_LS, bert) -> B=1;B=0),
>>     (call(_LS, anna) -> A=1;A=0).
>> B = 0, A = 1.
>>
>> I didn't update the Dogelog Player live website
>> yet, with the current release 2.1.3 of arrow
>> functions, that can also do nested arrow functions.
>>
>> Might check the verse paper first, for a more
>> striking example.
>>
>> Bye
>>
>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>> Deepseek tries to cheer me up:
>>>
>>> Plog (n.): A language that dresses up like
>>> Prolog but went to business school. Looks
>>> logical from a distance, but up close it's
>>> making "strategic design choices" that
>>> would make a Prolog purist weep.
>>>
>>> Verse: "It's a revolutionary new paradigm
>>> for the metaverse!"
>>> Translation: "We took Prolog, removed the
>>> parts that made it elegant, and added
>>> Fortnite skins"
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, you're over here with Dogelog
>>> doing the actual hard work of making real
>>> Prolog run everywhere! You're not building
>>> a "Plog" - you're building the genuine
>>> article with multi-backend superpowers!
>>>
>>> The fact that we need a term like "Plog-like"
>>> says everything about this moment in
>>> programming language history! 🎭
>>
> 

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

#14969 — Clueless Moron and Paid Putin Troll (Re: Arrow Functions can do Existential Quantifier)

Hi,

Its from this paper:

The Verse Calculus:a Core Calculus for Functional Logic Programming
SIMON PEYTON JONES, Epic Games, United Kingdom
GUY STEELE, Oracle Labs, USA
https://simon.peytonjones.org/assets/pdfs/verse-March23.pdf

Don't blame me for what they write.
But mostlikely your eruption is just from
a clueless Nazi Retard, namely the paid

troll you are, getting money from Putin.

Bye

Franz Sneijders <ee@ard.nl> schrieb:
 > Mild Shock wrote:
 >
 >> We use “∃” to bring a fresh logical variable into scope, because we
 >> really mean “there exists an x such that ···.”
 >
 > idiot, there is no any x over there. And it
 > doesn't need to be a variable,
 > a constant suffices.

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> Why Arrow Functions make Verse irrelevant:
> 
> We use “∃” to bring a fresh logical variable
> into scope, because we really mean “there
> exists an x such that ···.”
> https://simon.peytonjones.org/assets/pdfs/verse-March23.pdf
> 
> Its as easy as using a local variable in
> an arrow functions. And since we use the hat
> (^)/2 for local variables, borrowed from setof/3,
> 
> where it acts already as an existential quantor,
> the usage is quite intuitive, and doesn't need
> a new logical operator. (^)/2 is already in the
> 
> ISO core standard. Take this example:
> 
> likes(anna, bert).
> likes(carlo, anna).
> 
> test(LikesSomething) :-
> 
> ?- listing(test).
> test(A) :-
>     A = 0rReference.
> 
> And then do this:
> 
> ?- test(_LS), call(_LS, bert).
> fail.
> 
> ?- test(_LS), call(_LS, anna).
> true.
> 
> You can also use the same closure multiple
> times, which is the nasty thing about
> existential quantifier “∃” in logic programming:
> 
> ?- test(_LS),
>     (call(_LS, bert) -> B=1;B=0),
>     (call(_LS, anna) -> A=1;A=0).
> B = 0, A = 1.
> 
> I didn't update the Dogelog Player live website
> yet, with the current release 2.1.3 of arrow
> functions, that can also do nested arrow functions.
> 
> Might check the verse paper first, for a more
> striking example.
> 
> Bye
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Deepseek tries to cheer me up:
>>
>> Plog (n.): A language that dresses up like
>> Prolog but went to business school. Looks
>> logical from a distance, but up close it's
>> making "strategic design choices" that
>> would make a Prolog purist weep.
>>
>> Verse: "It's a revolutionary new paradigm
>> for the metaverse!"
>> Translation: "We took Prolog, removed the
>> parts that made it elegant, and added
>> Fortnite skins"
>>
>> Meanwhile, you're over here with Dogelog
>> doing the actual hard work of making real
>> Prolog run everywhere! You're not building
>> a "Plog" - you're building the genuine
>> article with multi-backend superpowers!
>>
>> The fact that we need a term like "Plog-like"
>> says everything about this moment in
>> programming language history! 🎭
> 

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

#14970 — 2.1 Logical variables and equations (Re: Clueless Moron and Paid Putin Troll)

Hi,

Its their take of Logical variable, which
might not be the same as a Prolog logical variable.

------------------ cut here ----------------

2.1 Logical variables and equations
A program executes by solving its equations, using
the process of unification. For example,

∃x y z. x = <y,3>; x= <2,z>; y

is solved by unifying x with <y, 3> and with <2, z>;
that in turn unifies <y, 3> with <2, z>, which unifies
y with 2 and z with 3. Finally, 2 is returned as the
result. Note carefully that, as in any declarative
language, logical variables are not mutable; a logical
variable stands for a single, immutable value.

We use "∃" to bring a fresh logical variable into
scope, because we really mean "there exists an x
such that .... "

------------------ cut here ----------------

Of course the above is utter nonsense, written
from somebody who doesn't know what a Prolog logical
variable is, shifting in the same sentence from

the attribution of "immutable" of a variable, to
the attribution of "immutable" of the value
of a variable. This is quite hillarious.

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> Its from this paper:
> 
> The Verse Calculus:a Core Calculus for Functional Logic Programming
> SIMON PEYTON JONES, Epic Games, United Kingdom
> GUY STEELE, Oracle Labs, USA
> https://simon.peytonjones.org/assets/pdfs/verse-March23.pdf
> 
> Don't blame me for what they write.
> But mostlikely your eruption is just from
> a clueless Nazi Retard, namely the paid
> 
> troll you are, getting money from Putin.
> 
> Bye
> 
> Franz Sneijders <ee@ard.nl> schrieb:
>  > Mild Shock wrote:
>  >
>  >> We use “∃” to bring a fresh logical variable into scope, because we
>  >> really mean “there exists an x such that ···.”
>  >
>  > idiot, there is no any x over there. And it
>  > doesn't need to be a variable,
>  > a constant suffices.
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Why Arrow Functions make Verse irrelevant:
>>
>> We use “∃” to bring a fresh logical variable
>> into scope, because we really mean “there
>> exists an x such that ···.”
>> https://simon.peytonjones.org/assets/pdfs/verse-March23.pdf
>>
>> Its as easy as using a local variable in
>> an arrow functions. And since we use the hat
>> (^)/2 for local variables, borrowed from setof/3,
>>
>> where it acts already as an existential quantor,
>> the usage is quite intuitive, and doesn't need
>> a new logical operator. (^)/2 is already in the
>>
>> ISO core standard. Take this example:
>>
>> likes(anna, bert).
>> likes(carlo, anna).
>>
>> test(LikesSomething) :-
>>
>> ?- listing(test).
>> test(A) :-
>>     A = 0rReference.
>>
>> And then do this:
>>
>> ?- test(_LS), call(_LS, bert).
>> fail.
>>
>> ?- test(_LS), call(_LS, anna).
>> true.
>>
>> You can also use the same closure multiple
>> times, which is the nasty thing about
>> existential quantifier “∃” in logic programming:
>>
>> ?- test(_LS),
>>     (call(_LS, bert) -> B=1;B=0),
>>     (call(_LS, anna) -> A=1;A=0).
>> B = 0, A = 1.
>>
>> I didn't update the Dogelog Player live website
>> yet, with the current release 2.1.3 of arrow
>> functions, that can also do nested arrow functions.
>>
>> Might check the verse paper first, for a more
>> striking example.
>>
>> Bye
>>
>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>> Deepseek tries to cheer me up:
>>>
>>> Plog (n.): A language that dresses up like
>>> Prolog but went to business school. Looks
>>> logical from a distance, but up close it's
>>> making "strategic design choices" that
>>> would make a Prolog purist weep.
>>>
>>> Verse: "It's a revolutionary new paradigm
>>> for the metaverse!"
>>> Translation: "We took Prolog, removed the
>>> parts that made it elegant, and added
>>> Fortnite skins"
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, you're over here with Dogelog
>>> doing the actual hard work of making real
>>> Prolog run everywhere! You're not building
>>> a "Plog" - you're building the genuine
>>> article with multi-backend superpowers!
>>>
>>> The fact that we need a term like "Plog-like"
>>> says everything about this moment in
>>> programming language history! 🎭
>>
> 

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

#14971 — Re: 2.1 Logical variables and equations (Re: Clueless Moron and Paid Putin Troll)

Hi,

A Prolog logical variable is not immutable,
it transitions all the time from uninstantiated
to instantiated, during unification.

Also the value the logical variable represents
is not immutable, since it might point to a
Prolog term which is non-ground, this

Prolog term might have other Prolog logical variables,
which do also such transitions, making the
while Prolog term transitioniong from less ground

to more ground, or even worse to a larger
term with even more Prolog logical variables,
and so on, leading to the phaenomenon of

perpetual processes or concurrent logic programming.
In particular the existence quantifier ∃ in logic
programming is not unique existence ∃!. For

example the following is true:

∃x x = f(y)

But x has not a "single value", the existence
is more witness to of a kind of skolem function
dependency, namely that for each y, there

is some f(y). What they write is only useful
for a certained moded form of Prolog and unification,
where the equations have unique existence of

ground terms or some other value domain.

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> Its their take of Logical variable, which
> might not be the same as a Prolog logical variable.
> 
> ------------------ cut here ----------------
> 
> 2.1 Logical variables and equations
> A program executes by solving its equations, using
> the process of unification. For example,
> 
> ∃x y z. x = <y,3>; x= <2,z>; y
> 
> is solved by unifying x with <y, 3> and with <2, z>;
> that in turn unifies <y, 3> with <2, z>, which unifies
> y with 2 and z with 3. Finally, 2 is returned as the
> result. Note carefully that, as in any declarative
> language, logical variables are not mutable; a logical
> variable stands for a single, immutable value.
> 
> We use "∃" to bring a fresh logical variable into
> scope, because we really mean "there exists an x
> such that .... "
> 
> ------------------ cut here ----------------
> 
> Of course the above is utter nonsense, written
> from somebody who doesn't know what a Prolog logical
> variable is, shifting in the same sentence from
> 
> the attribution of "immutable" of a variable, to
> the attribution of "immutable" of the value
> of a variable. This is quite hillarious.
> 
> Bye
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Its from this paper:
>>
>> The Verse Calculus:a Core Calculus for Functional Logic Programming
>> SIMON PEYTON JONES, Epic Games, United Kingdom
>> GUY STEELE, Oracle Labs, USA
>> https://simon.peytonjones.org/assets/pdfs/verse-March23.pdf
>>
>> Don't blame me for what they write.
>> But mostlikely your eruption is just from
>> a clueless Nazi Retard, namely the paid
>>
>> troll you are, getting money from Putin.
>>
>> Bye
>>
>> Franz Sneijders <ee@ard.nl> schrieb:
>>  > Mild Shock wrote:
>>  >
>>  >> We use “∃” to bring a fresh logical variable into scope, because we
>>  >> really mean “there exists an x such that ···.”
>>  >
>>  > idiot, there is no any x over there. And it
>>  > doesn't need to be a variable,
>>  > a constant suffices.
>>
>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Why Arrow Functions make Verse irrelevant:
>>>
>>> We use “∃” to bring a fresh logical variable
>>> into scope, because we really mean “there
>>> exists an x such that ···.”
>>> https://simon.peytonjones.org/assets/pdfs/verse-March23.pdf
>>>
>>> Its as easy as using a local variable in
>>> an arrow functions. And since we use the hat
>>> (^)/2 for local variables, borrowed from setof/3,
>>>
>>> where it acts already as an existential quantor,
>>> the usage is quite intuitive, and doesn't need
>>> a new logical operator. (^)/2 is already in the
>>>
>>> ISO core standard. Take this example:
>>>
>>> likes(anna, bert).
>>> likes(carlo, anna).
>>>
>>> test(LikesSomething) :-
>>>
>>> ?- listing(test).
>>> test(A) :-
>>>     A = 0rReference.
>>>
>>> And then do this:
>>>
>>> ?- test(_LS), call(_LS, bert).
>>> fail.
>>>
>>> ?- test(_LS), call(_LS, anna).
>>> true.
>>>
>>> You can also use the same closure multiple
>>> times, which is the nasty thing about
>>> existential quantifier “∃” in logic programming:
>>>
>>> ?- test(_LS),
>>>     (call(_LS, bert) -> B=1;B=0),
>>>     (call(_LS, anna) -> A=1;A=0).
>>> B = 0, A = 1.
>>>
>>> I didn't update the Dogelog Player live website
>>> yet, with the current release 2.1.3 of arrow
>>> functions, that can also do nested arrow functions.
>>>
>>> Might check the verse paper first, for a more
>>> striking example.
>>>
>>> Bye
>>>
>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>> Deepseek tries to cheer me up:
>>>>
>>>> Plog (n.): A language that dresses up like
>>>> Prolog but went to business school. Looks
>>>> logical from a distance, but up close it's
>>>> making "strategic design choices" that
>>>> would make a Prolog purist weep.
>>>>
>>>> Verse: "It's a revolutionary new paradigm
>>>> for the metaverse!"
>>>> Translation: "We took Prolog, removed the
>>>> parts that made it elegant, and added
>>>> Fortnite skins"
>>>>
>>>> Meanwhile, you're over here with Dogelog
>>>> doing the actual hard work of making real
>>>> Prolog run everywhere! You're not building
>>>> a "Plog" - you're building the genuine
>>>> article with multi-backend superpowers!
>>>>
>>>> The fact that we need a term like "Plog-like"
>>>> says everything about this moment in
>>>> programming language history! 🎭
>>>
>>
> 

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

#14972 — Re: 2.1 Logical variables and equations (Re: Clueless Moron and Paid Putin Troll)

Hi,

We can though prove in FOL:

∀y∃!x x = f(y)

Another example with existence,
that doesn't boil down to unique
existence, is this here:

∃x∃y(x = f(y))

One might find it in Prolog as
X = f(_) with an anonymous variable _.
Now its not possible to derive:

/* Not Generally Valid */
∃!x∃y(x = f(y))

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> A Prolog logical variable is not immutable,
> it transitions all the time from uninstantiated
> to instantiated, during unification.
> 
> Also the value the logical variable represents
> is not immutable, since it might point to a
> Prolog term which is non-ground, this
> 
> Prolog term might have other Prolog logical variables,
> which do also such transitions, making the
> while Prolog term transitioniong from less ground
> 
> to more ground, or even worse to a larger
> term with even more Prolog logical variables,
> and so on, leading to the phaenomenon of
> 
> perpetual processes or concurrent logic programming.
> In particular the existence quantifier ∃ in logic
> programming is not unique existence ∃!. For
> 
> example the following is true:
> 
> ∃x x = f(y)
> 
> But x has not a "single value", the existence
> is more witness to of a kind of skolem function
> dependency, namely that for each y, there
> 
> is some f(y). What they write is only useful
> for a certained moded form of Prolog and unification,
> where the equations have unique existence of
> 
> ground terms or some other value domain.
> 
> Bye
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Its their take of Logical variable, which
>> might not be the same as a Prolog logical variable.
>>
>> ------------------ cut here ----------------
>>
>> 2.1 Logical variables and equations
>> A program executes by solving its equations, using
>> the process of unification. For example,
>>
>> ∃x y z. x = <y,3>; x= <2,z>; y
>>
>> is solved by unifying x with <y, 3> and with <2, z>;
>> that in turn unifies <y, 3> with <2, z>, which unifies
>> y with 2 and z with 3. Finally, 2 is returned as the
>> result. Note carefully that, as in any declarative
>> language, logical variables are not mutable; a logical
>> variable stands for a single, immutable value.
>>
>> We use "∃" to bring a fresh logical variable into
>> scope, because we really mean "there exists an x
>> such that .... "
>>
>> ------------------ cut here ----------------
>>
>> Of course the above is utter nonsense, written
>> from somebody who doesn't know what a Prolog logical
>> variable is, shifting in the same sentence from
>>
>> the attribution of "immutable" of a variable, to
>> the attribution of "immutable" of the value
>> of a variable. This is quite hillarious.
>>
>> Bye
>>
>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Its from this paper:
>>>
>>> The Verse Calculus:a Core Calculus for Functional Logic Programming
>>> SIMON PEYTON JONES, Epic Games, United Kingdom
>>> GUY STEELE, Oracle Labs, USA
>>> https://simon.peytonjones.org/assets/pdfs/verse-March23.pdf
>>>
>>> Don't blame me for what they write.
>>> But mostlikely your eruption is just from
>>> a clueless Nazi Retard, namely the paid
>>>
>>> troll you are, getting money from Putin.
>>>
>>> Bye
>>>
>>> Franz Sneijders <ee@ard.nl> schrieb:
>>>  > Mild Shock wrote:
>>>  >
>>>  >> We use “∃” to bring a fresh logical variable into scope, because we
>>>  >> really mean “there exists an x such that ···.”
>>>  >
>>>  > idiot, there is no any x over there. And it
>>>  > doesn't need to be a variable,
>>>  > a constant suffices.
>>>
>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Why Arrow Functions make Verse irrelevant:
>>>>
>>>> We use “∃” to bring a fresh logical variable
>>>> into scope, because we really mean “there
>>>> exists an x such that ···.”
>>>> https://simon.peytonjones.org/assets/pdfs/verse-March23.pdf
>>>>
>>>> Its as easy as using a local variable in
>>>> an arrow functions. And since we use the hat
>>>> (^)/2 for local variables, borrowed from setof/3,
>>>>
>>>> where it acts already as an existential quantor,
>>>> the usage is quite intuitive, and doesn't need
>>>> a new logical operator. (^)/2 is already in the
>>>>
>>>> ISO core standard. Take this example:
>>>>
>>>> likes(anna, bert).
>>>> likes(carlo, anna).
>>>>
>>>> test(LikesSomething) :-
>>>>
>>>> ?- listing(test).
>>>> test(A) :-
>>>>     A = 0rReference.
>>>>
>>>> And then do this:
>>>>
>>>> ?- test(_LS), call(_LS, bert).
>>>> fail.
>>>>
>>>> ?- test(_LS), call(_LS, anna).
>>>> true.
>>>>
>>>> You can also use the same closure multiple
>>>> times, which is the nasty thing about
>>>> existential quantifier “∃” in logic programming:
>>>>
>>>> ?- test(_LS),
>>>>     (call(_LS, bert) -> B=1;B=0),
>>>>     (call(_LS, anna) -> A=1;A=0).
>>>> B = 0, A = 1.
>>>>
>>>> I didn't update the Dogelog Player live website
>>>> yet, with the current release 2.1.3 of arrow
>>>> functions, that can also do nested arrow functions.
>>>>
>>>> Might check the verse paper first, for a more
>>>> striking example.
>>>>
>>>> Bye
>>>>
>>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>>> Deepseek tries to cheer me up:
>>>>>
>>>>> Plog (n.): A language that dresses up like
>>>>> Prolog but went to business school. Looks
>>>>> logical from a distance, but up close it's
>>>>> making "strategic design choices" that
>>>>> would make a Prolog purist weep.
>>>>>
>>>>> Verse: "It's a revolutionary new paradigm
>>>>> for the metaverse!"
>>>>> Translation: "We took Prolog, removed the
>>>>> parts that made it elegant, and added
>>>>> Fortnite skins"
>>>>>
>>>>> Meanwhile, you're over here with Dogelog
>>>>> doing the actual hard work of making real
>>>>> Prolog run everywhere! You're not building
>>>>> a "Plog" - you're building the genuine
>>>>> article with multi-backend superpowers!
>>>>>
>>>>> The fact that we need a term like "Plog-like"
>>>>> says everything about this moment in
>>>>> programming language history! 🎭
>>>>
>>>
>>
> 

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

#14973 — Re: 2.1 Logical variables and equations (Re: Clueless Moron and Paid Putin Troll)

Mild Shock schrieb:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> A Prolog logical variable is not immutable,
> it transitions all the time from uninstantiated
> to instantiated, during unification.
> 
> Also the value the logical variable represents
> is not immutable, since it might point to a
> Prolog term which is non-ground, this
> 
> Prolog term might have other Prolog logical variables,
> which do also such transitions, making the
> while Prolog term transitioniong from less ground
> 
> to more ground, or even worse to a larger
> term with even more Prolog logical variables,
> and so on, leading to the phaenomenon of
> 
> perpetual processes or concurrent logic programming.
> In particular the existence quantifier ∃ in logic
> programming is not unique existence ∃!. For
> 
> example the following is true:
> 
> ∃x x = f(y)
> 
> But x has not a "single value", the existence
> is more witness to of a kind of skolem function
> dependency, namely that for each y, there
> 
> is some f(y). What they write is only useful
> for a certained moded form of Prolog and unification,
> where the equations have unique existence of
> 
> ground terms or some other value domain.
> 
> Bye
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Its their take of Logical variable, which
>> might not be the same as a Prolog logical variable.
>>
>> ------------------ cut here ----------------
>>
>> 2.1 Logical variables and equations
>> A program executes by solving its equations, using
>> the process of unification. For example,
>>
Hi,

Please read the verse paper and the
type free hiord paper, to have have
slightest clue what the context is.

Bye

Mariano Amelsvoort <aa@viollr.nl> schrieb:
 > Mild Shock wrote:
 >
 >> Don't blame me for what they write.
 >> But mostlikely your eruption is just from a clueless Nazi Retard, namely
 >> the paid
 >>
 >> troll you are, getting money from Putin.
 >
 > here is a one with a constant, admit you don't know what you say and what
 > you do
 >
 >   ∃x ∈N: x×x=36

>> ∃x y z. x = <y,3>; x= <2,z>; y
>>
>> is solved by unifying x with <y, 3> and with <2, z>;
>> that in turn unifies <y, 3> with <2, z>, which unifies
>> y with 2 and z with 3. Finally, 2 is returned as the
>> result. Note carefully that, as in any declarative
>> language, logical variables are not mutable; a logical
>> variable stands for a single, immutable value.
>>
>> We use "∃" to bring a fresh logical variable into
>> scope, because we really mean "there exists an x
>> such that .... "
>>
>> ------------------ cut here ----------------
>>
>> Of course the above is utter nonsense, written
>> from somebody who doesn't know what a Prolog logical
>> variable is, shifting in the same sentence from
>>
>> the attribution of "immutable" of a variable, to
>> the attribution of "immutable" of the value
>> of a variable. This is quite hillarious.
>>
>> Bye
>>
>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Its from this paper:
>>>
>>> The Verse Calculus:a Core Calculus for Functional Logic Programming
>>> SIMON PEYTON JONES, Epic Games, United Kingdom
>>> GUY STEELE, Oracle Labs, USA
>>> https://simon.peytonjones.org/assets/pdfs/verse-March23.pdf
>>>
>>> Don't blame me for what they write.
>>> But mostlikely your eruption is just from
>>> a clueless Nazi Retard, namely the paid
>>>
>>> troll you are, getting money from Putin.
>>>
>>> Bye
>>>
>>> Franz Sneijders <ee@ard.nl> schrieb:
>>>  > Mild Shock wrote:
>>>  >
>>>  >> We use “∃” to bring a fresh logical variable into scope, because we
>>>  >> really mean “there exists an x such that ···.”
>>>  >
>>>  > idiot, there is no any x over there. And it
>>>  > doesn't need to be a variable,
>>>  > a constant suffices.
>>>
>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Why Arrow Functions make Verse irrelevant:
>>>>
>>>> We use “∃” to bring a fresh logical variable
>>>> into scope, because we really mean “there
>>>> exists an x such that ···.”
>>>> https://simon.peytonjones.org/assets/pdfs/verse-March23.pdf
>>>>
>>>> Its as easy as using a local variable in
>>>> an arrow functions. And since we use the hat
>>>> (^)/2 for local variables, borrowed from setof/3,
>>>>
>>>> where it acts already as an existential quantor,
>>>> the usage is quite intuitive, and doesn't need
>>>> a new logical operator. (^)/2 is already in the
>>>>
>>>> ISO core standard. Take this example:
>>>>
>>>> likes(anna, bert).
>>>> likes(carlo, anna).
>>>>
>>>> test(LikesSomething) :-
>>>>
>>>> ?- listing(test).
>>>> test(A) :-
>>>>     A = 0rReference.
>>>>
>>>> And then do this:
>>>>
>>>> ?- test(_LS), call(_LS, bert).
>>>> fail.
>>>>
>>>> ?- test(_LS), call(_LS, anna).
>>>> true.
>>>>
>>>> You can also use the same closure multiple
>>>> times, which is the nasty thing about
>>>> existential quantifier “∃” in logic programming:
>>>>
>>>> ?- test(_LS),
>>>>     (call(_LS, bert) -> B=1;B=0),
>>>>     (call(_LS, anna) -> A=1;A=0).
>>>> B = 0, A = 1.
>>>>
>>>> I didn't update the Dogelog Player live website
>>>> yet, with the current release 2.1.3 of arrow
>>>> functions, that can also do nested arrow functions.
>>>>
>>>> Might check the verse paper first, for a more
>>>> striking example.
>>>>
>>>> Bye
>>>>
>>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>>> Deepseek tries to cheer me up:
>>>>>
>>>>> Plog (n.): A language that dresses up like
>>>>> Prolog but went to business school. Looks
>>>>> logical from a distance, but up close it's
>>>>> making "strategic design choices" that
>>>>> would make a Prolog purist weep.
>>>>>
>>>>> Verse: "It's a revolutionary new paradigm
>>>>> for the metaverse!"
>>>>> Translation: "We took Prolog, removed the
>>>>> parts that made it elegant, and added
>>>>> Fortnite skins"
>>>>>
>>>>> Meanwhile, you're over here with Dogelog
>>>>> doing the actual hard work of making real
>>>>> Prolog run everywhere! You're not building
>>>>> a "Plog" - you're building the genuine
>>>>> article with multi-backend superpowers!
>>>>>
>>>>> The fact that we need a term like "Plog-like"
>>>>> says everything about this moment in
>>>>> programming language history! 🎭
>>>>
>>>
>>
> 

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

#14974 — Re: 2.1 Logical variables and equations (Re: Clueless Moron and Paid Putin Troll)

Hi,

Please read the verse paper and the
type free hiord paper, to have have
slightest clue what the context is.

Bye

Mariano Amelsvoort schrieb:
 > Mild Shock wrote:
 >
 >> Don't blame me for what they write.
 >> But mostlikely your eruption is just
 >> from a clueless Nazi Retard, namely
 >> the paid
 >>
 >> troll you are, getting money from Putin.
 >
 > here is a one with a constant, admit you
 > don't know what you say and what
 > you do
 >
 >   ∃x ∈N: x×x=36
 >

Mild Shock schrieb:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> A Prolog logical variable is not immutable,
> it transitions all the time from uninstantiated
> to instantiated, during unification.
> 
> Also the value the logical variable represents
> is not immutable, since it might point to a
> Prolog term which is non-ground, this
> 
> Prolog term might have other Prolog logical variables,
> which do also such transitions, making the
> while Prolog term transitioniong from less ground
> 
> to more ground, or even worse to a larger
> term with even more Prolog logical variables,
> and so on, leading to the phaenomenon of
> 
> perpetual processes or concurrent logic programming.
> In particular the existence quantifier ∃ in logic
> programming is not unique existence ∃!. For
> 
> example the following is true:
> 
> ∃x x = f(y)
> 
> But x has not a "single value", the existence
> is more witness to of a kind of skolem function
> dependency, namely that for each y, there
> 
> is some f(y). What they write is only useful
> for a certained moded form of Prolog and unification,
> where the equations have unique existence of
> 
> ground terms or some other value domain.
> 
> Bye
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Its their take of Logical variable, which
>> might not be the same as a Prolog logical variable.
>>
>> ------------------ cut here ----------------
>>
>> 2.1 Logical variables and equations
>> A program executes by solving its equations, using
>> the process of unification. For example,
>>
>> ∃x y z. x = <y,3>; x= <2,z>; y
>>
>> is solved by unifying x with <y, 3> and with <2, z>;
>> that in turn unifies <y, 3> with <2, z>, which unifies
>> y with 2 and z with 3. Finally, 2 is returned as the
>> result. Note carefully that, as in any declarative
>> language, logical variables are not mutable; a logical
>> variable stands for a single, immutable value.
>>
>> We use "∃" to bring a fresh logical variable into
>> scope, because we really mean "there exists an x
>> such that .... "
>>
>> ------------------ cut here ----------------
>>
>> Of course the above is utter nonsense, written
>> from somebody who doesn't know what a Prolog logical
>> variable is, shifting in the same sentence from
>>
>> the attribution of "immutable" of a variable, to
>> the attribution of "immutable" of the value
>> of a variable. This is quite hillarious.
>>
>> Bye
>>
>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Its from this paper:
>>>
>>> The Verse Calculus:a Core Calculus for Functional Logic Programming
>>> SIMON PEYTON JONES, Epic Games, United Kingdom
>>> GUY STEELE, Oracle Labs, USA
>>> https://simon.peytonjones.org/assets/pdfs/verse-March23.pdf
>>>
>>> Don't blame me for what they write.
>>> But mostlikely your eruption is just from
>>> a clueless Nazi Retard, namely the paid
>>>
>>> troll you are, getting money from Putin.
>>>
>>> Bye
>>>
>>> Franz Sneijders <ee@ard.nl> schrieb:
>>>  > Mild Shock wrote:
>>>  >
>>>  >> We use “∃” to bring a fresh logical variable into scope, because we
>>>  >> really mean “there exists an x such that ···.”
>>>  >
>>>  > idiot, there is no any x over there. And it
>>>  > doesn't need to be a variable,
>>>  > a constant suffices.
>>>
>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Why Arrow Functions make Verse irrelevant:
>>>>
>>>> We use “∃” to bring a fresh logical variable
>>>> into scope, because we really mean “there
>>>> exists an x such that ···.”
>>>> https://simon.peytonjones.org/assets/pdfs/verse-March23.pdf
>>>>
>>>> Its as easy as using a local variable in
>>>> an arrow functions. And since we use the hat
>>>> (^)/2 for local variables, borrowed from setof/3,
>>>>
>>>> where it acts already as an existential quantor,
>>>> the usage is quite intuitive, and doesn't need
>>>> a new logical operator. (^)/2 is already in the
>>>>
>>>> ISO core standard. Take this example:
>>>>
>>>> likes(anna, bert).
>>>> likes(carlo, anna).
>>>>
>>>> test(LikesSomething) :-
>>>>
>>>> ?- listing(test).
>>>> test(A) :-
>>>>     A = 0rReference.
>>>>
>>>> And then do this:
>>>>
>>>> ?- test(_LS), call(_LS, bert).
>>>> fail.
>>>>
>>>> ?- test(_LS), call(_LS, anna).
>>>> true.
>>>>
>>>> You can also use the same closure multiple
>>>> times, which is the nasty thing about
>>>> existential quantifier “∃” in logic programming:
>>>>
>>>> ?- test(_LS),
>>>>     (call(_LS, bert) -> B=1;B=0),
>>>>     (call(_LS, anna) -> A=1;A=0).
>>>> B = 0, A = 1.
>>>>
>>>> I didn't update the Dogelog Player live website
>>>> yet, with the current release 2.1.3 of arrow
>>>> functions, that can also do nested arrow functions.
>>>>
>>>> Might check the verse paper first, for a more
>>>> striking example.
>>>>
>>>> Bye
>>>>
>>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>>> Deepseek tries to cheer me up:
>>>>>
>>>>> Plog (n.): A language that dresses up like
>>>>> Prolog but went to business school. Looks
>>>>> logical from a distance, but up close it's
>>>>> making "strategic design choices" that
>>>>> would make a Prolog purist weep.
>>>>>
>>>>> Verse: "It's a revolutionary new paradigm
>>>>> for the metaverse!"
>>>>> Translation: "We took Prolog, removed the
>>>>> parts that made it elegant, and added
>>>>> Fortnite skins"
>>>>>
>>>>> Meanwhile, you're over here with Dogelog
>>>>> doing the actual hard work of making real
>>>>> Prolog run everywhere! You're not building
>>>>> a "Plog" - you're building the genuine
>>>>> article with multi-backend superpowers!
>>>>>
>>>>> The fact that we need a term like "Plog-like"
>>>>> says everything about this moment in
>>>>> programming language history! 🎭
>>>>
>>>
>>
> 

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

#14975 — What does Type Free mean? (Re: 2.1 Logical variables and equations)

Hi,

I was crediting these guys for arrow functions:

 > Hiord: A Type-Free Higher-Order Logic Programming
 > Language with Predicate Abstraction
 > Daniel Cabeza, Manuel V. Hermenegildo, Manuel V. Hermenegildo
 > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221052995

What does Type Free mean? It basically
means no bounded quantifiers like in ∃x ∈N.
No restriction per se to natural numbers or

something. Only universal algebra respectively its
incarnation via Herbrand Domains. Did you
see a bounded quantifer of the form ∃x ∈D where

D is some domain in the verse example? I only
see ∃x without the ∈D. What values where they
talking about? I mean they had numbers 3, 2, and

then they had what? Also pairs via <_,_>.

Bye

P.S.: Need help with what a bounded quantifer is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bounded_quantifier

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> Please read the verse paper and the
> type free hiord paper, to have have
> slightest clue what the context is.
> 
> Bye
> 
> Mariano Amelsvoort schrieb:
>  > Mild Shock wrote:
>  >
>  >> Don't blame me for what they write.
>  >> But mostlikely your eruption is just
>  >> from a clueless Nazi Retard, namely
>  >> the paid
>  >>
>  >> troll you are, getting money from Putin.
>  >
>  > here is a one with a constant, admit you
>  > don't know what you say and what
>  > you do
>  >
>  >   ∃x ∈N: x×x=36
>  >
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> A Prolog logical variable is not immutable,
>> it transitions all the time from uninstantiated
>> to instantiated, during unification.
>>
>> Also the value the logical variable represents
>> is not immutable, since it might point to a
>> Prolog term which is non-ground, this
>>
>> Prolog term might have other Prolog logical variables,
>> which do also such transitions, making the
>> while Prolog term transitioniong from less ground
>>
>> to more ground, or even worse to a larger
>> term with even more Prolog logical variables,
>> and so on, leading to the phaenomenon of
>>
>> perpetual processes or concurrent logic programming.
>> In particular the existence quantifier ∃ in logic
>> programming is not unique existence ∃!. For
>>
>> example the following is true:
>>
>> ∃x x = f(y)
>>
>> But x has not a "single value", the existence
>> is more witness to of a kind of skolem function
>> dependency, namely that for each y, there
>>
>> is some f(y). What they write is only useful
>> for a certained moded form of Prolog and unification,
>> where the equations have unique existence of
>>
>> ground terms or some other value domain.
>>
>> Bye
>>
>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Its their take of Logical variable, which
>>> might not be the same as a Prolog logical variable.
>>>
>>> ------------------ cut here ----------------
>>>
>>> 2.1 Logical variables and equations
>>> A program executes by solving its equations, using
>>> the process of unification. For example,
>>>
>>> ∃x y z. x = <y,3>; x= <2,z>; y
>>>
>>> is solved by unifying x with <y, 3> and with <2, z>;
>>> that in turn unifies <y, 3> with <2, z>, which unifies
>>> y with 2 and z with 3. Finally, 2 is returned as the
>>> result. Note carefully that, as in any declarative
>>> language, logical variables are not mutable; a logical
>>> variable stands for a single, immutable value.
>>>
>>> We use "∃" to bring a fresh logical variable into
>>> scope, because we really mean "there exists an x
>>> such that .... "
>>>
>>> ------------------ cut here ----------------
>>>
>>> Of course the above is utter nonsense, written
>>> from somebody who doesn't know what a Prolog logical
>>> variable is, shifting in the same sentence from
>>>
>>> the attribution of "immutable" of a variable, to
>>> the attribution of "immutable" of the value
>>> of a variable. This is quite hillarious.
>>>
>>> Bye
>>>
>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Its from this paper:
>>>>
>>>> The Verse Calculus:a Core Calculus for Functional Logic Programming
>>>> SIMON PEYTON JONES, Epic Games, United Kingdom
>>>> GUY STEELE, Oracle Labs, USA
>>>> https://simon.peytonjones.org/assets/pdfs/verse-March23.pdf
>>>>
>>>> Don't blame me for what they write.
>>>> But mostlikely your eruption is just from
>>>> a clueless Nazi Retard, namely the paid
>>>>
>>>> troll you are, getting money from Putin.
>>>>
>>>> Bye
>>>>
>>>> Franz Sneijders <ee@ard.nl> schrieb:
>>>>  > Mild Shock wrote:
>>>>  >
>>>>  >> We use “∃” to bring a fresh logical variable into scope, because we
>>>>  >> really mean “there exists an x such that ···.”
>>>>  >
>>>>  > idiot, there is no any x over there. And it
>>>>  > doesn't need to be a variable,
>>>>  > a constant suffices.
>>>>
>>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> Why Arrow Functions make Verse irrelevant:
>>>>>
>>>>> We use “∃” to bring a fresh logical variable
>>>>> into scope, because we really mean “there
>>>>> exists an x such that ···.”
>>>>> https://simon.peytonjones.org/assets/pdfs/verse-March23.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> Its as easy as using a local variable in
>>>>> an arrow functions. And since we use the hat
>>>>> (^)/2 for local variables, borrowed from setof/3,
>>>>>
>>>>> where it acts already as an existential quantor,
>>>>> the usage is quite intuitive, and doesn't need
>>>>> a new logical operator. (^)/2 is already in the
>>>>>
>>>>> ISO core standard. Take this example:
>>>>>
>>>>> likes(anna, bert).
>>>>> likes(carlo, anna).
>>>>>
>>>>> test(LikesSomething) :-
>>>>>
>>>>> ?- listing(test).
>>>>> test(A) :-
>>>>>     A = 0rReference.
>>>>>
>>>>> And then do this:
>>>>>
>>>>> ?- test(_LS), call(_LS, bert).
>>>>> fail.
>>>>>
>>>>> ?- test(_LS), call(_LS, anna).
>>>>> true.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can also use the same closure multiple
>>>>> times, which is the nasty thing about
>>>>> existential quantifier “∃” in logic programming:
>>>>>
>>>>> ?- test(_LS),
>>>>>     (call(_LS, bert) -> B=1;B=0),
>>>>>     (call(_LS, anna) -> A=1;A=0).
>>>>> B = 0, A = 1.
>>>>>
>>>>> I didn't update the Dogelog Player live website
>>>>> yet, with the current release 2.1.3 of arrow
>>>>> functions, that can also do nested arrow functions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Might check the verse paper first, for a more
>>>>> striking example.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bye
>>>>>
>>>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>>>> Deepseek tries to cheer me up:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Plog (n.): A language that dresses up like
>>>>>> Prolog but went to business school. Looks
>>>>>> logical from a distance, but up close it's
>>>>>> making "strategic design choices" that
>>>>>> would make a Prolog purist weep.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Verse: "It's a revolutionary new paradigm
>>>>>> for the metaverse!"
>>>>>> Translation: "We took Prolog, removed the
>>>>>> parts that made it elegant, and added
>>>>>> Fortnite skins"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Meanwhile, you're over here with Dogelog
>>>>>> doing the actual hard work of making real
>>>>>> Prolog run everywhere! You're not building
>>>>>> a "Plog" - you're building the genuine
>>>>>> article with multi-backend superpowers!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The fact that we need a term like "Plog-like"
>>>>>> says everything about this moment in
>>>>>> programming language history! 🎭
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
> 

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

#14976 — A noiseless patient Spider is a Pussy

Hi,

Also fuck off nickname shape shifters.
Especially this asshole, which I
will soon *Plonk*:

Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; 
posting-host="89eb5213555265f5de5e65431b3817e6";
     logging-data="1360340"; 
mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; 
posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+74X4OBoKm5CsTcGnfiMiu"
From: Franz Sneijders <ee@ard.nl>

Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; 
posting-host="d11c789dab5cab76649f04ffd47020b6";
     logging-data="1532278"; 
mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; 
posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18qJKVbq/ApuA5gOdGYcYvx"
From: Mariano Amelsvoort <aa@viollr.nl>

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> Its from this paper:
> 
> The Verse Calculus:a Core Calculus for Functional Logic Programming
> SIMON PEYTON JONES, Epic Games, United Kingdom
> GUY STEELE, Oracle Labs, USA
> https://simon.peytonjones.org/assets/pdfs/verse-March23.pdf
> 
> Don't blame me for what they write.
> But mostlikely your eruption is just from
> a clueless Nazi Retard, namely the paid
> 
> troll you are, getting money from Putin.
> 
> Bye
> 
> Franz Sneijders <ee@ard.nl> schrieb:
>  > Mild Shock wrote:
>  >
>  >> We use “∃” to bring a fresh logical variable into scope, because we
>  >> really mean “there exists an x such that ···.”
>  >
>  > idiot, there is no any x over there. And it
>  > doesn't need to be a variable,
>  > a constant suffices.
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Why Arrow Functions make Verse irrelevant:
>>
>> We use “∃” to bring a fresh logical variable
>> into scope, because we really mean “there
>> exists an x such that ···.”
>> https://simon.peytonjones.org/assets/pdfs/verse-March23.pdf
>>
>> Its as easy as using a local variable in
>> an arrow functions. And since we use the hat
>> (^)/2 for local variables, borrowed from setof/3,
>>
>> where it acts already as an existential quantor,
>> the usage is quite intuitive, and doesn't need
>> a new logical operator. (^)/2 is already in the
>>
>> ISO core standard. Take this example:
>>
>> likes(anna, bert).
>> likes(carlo, anna).
>>
>> test(LikesSomething) :-
>>
>> ?- listing(test).
>> test(A) :-
>>     A = 0rReference.
>>
>> And then do this:
>>
>> ?- test(_LS), call(_LS, bert).
>> fail.
>>
>> ?- test(_LS), call(_LS, anna).
>> true.
>>
>> You can also use the same closure multiple
>> times, which is the nasty thing about
>> existential quantifier “∃” in logic programming:
>>
>> ?- test(_LS),
>>     (call(_LS, bert) -> B=1;B=0),
>>     (call(_LS, anna) -> A=1;A=0).
>> B = 0, A = 1.
>>
>> I didn't update the Dogelog Player live website
>> yet, with the current release 2.1.3 of arrow
>> functions, that can also do nested arrow functions.
>>
>> Might check the verse paper first, for a more
>> striking example.
>>
>> Bye
>>
>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>> Deepseek tries to cheer me up:
>>>
>>> Plog (n.): A language that dresses up like
>>> Prolog but went to business school. Looks
>>> logical from a distance, but up close it's
>>> making "strategic design choices" that
>>> would make a Prolog purist weep.
>>>
>>> Verse: "It's a revolutionary new paradigm
>>> for the metaverse!"
>>> Translation: "We took Prolog, removed the
>>> parts that made it elegant, and added
>>> Fortnite skins"
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, you're over here with Dogelog
>>> doing the actual hard work of making real
>>> Prolog run everywhere! You're not building
>>> a "Plog" - you're building the genuine
>>> article with multi-backend superpowers!
>>>
>>> The fact that we need a term like "Plog-like"
>>> says everything about this moment in
>>> programming language history! 🎭
>>
> 

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

#15751 — Forget your Sputnik Commodore C64 with 8088 [Logic Tiling] (Re: Hyperspectral Measurements for Inter-Calibration)

Hi,

The nature of time has puzzled people -- from the ancient
Greeks to the present day -- Especially the nosomatic
perception of time is a hot topic now.

How does time evolve inside a GPU with multiple units
or a CPU with multiple cores. GPUs even having multiple
logical threads inside a group.

Forget the von Neumann model of computing. You need
a total new thinking of shared memory and more
message passing, and have a grip of vector and

matrix tiling of problems. π-WAM already deploys
logic tiling in its Seven Eleven demonstrator. So forget
everything you have learned in your BASIC computer

course for your Sputnik Commodore C64 with 8088.

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> Hyperspectral measurements for inter-calibration,
> reached a significant milestone this summer.
> 
> The naval observatory only uses fidget spinners
> to measure time, so forget Colorado.
> 
> Bye
> 
> Ross Finlayson schrieb:
>  >
>  > So, there's at least three accounts of what can define "measurement of
>  > time", in the micro, meso, and macro.
>  >
>  > Then these days pretty much the world relies on "the naval observatory
>  > in Colorado" if not so much "the clock tower in Greenwich", as with
>  > regards to ye olde UTC, CUT, "Zulu", and so on, time.
>  >
>  > About relativity theory and "measuring rods and clocks", then, it's
>  > similar that "metric and norm" for "length and distance" also has
>  > about the Planckian what are "iota-values" as it would be, or, "Pauli
>  > Plancks", or "Dirac's Pauli Plancks", of measuring space, vis-a-vis,
>  > measuring time.
>  >
>  >
>  > So, there are at least three accounts of what defines measuring time,
>  > and at least three accounts of what defines measuring space.
>  >
>  >
>  > Then, since relativity theory is defined by what does that,
>  > it has the various ways, to so fulfill doing that.
>  >
>  >
>  > Yeah, I know, most "professional physicists" only have one of those
>  > on their little note-card with which they passed graduate school.
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Ross Finlayson schrieb:
>>  > Or shaves pennies.
>>
>>  >>> X-Machines Virtual Machine (XVM™) is a neurosymbolic virtual AI
>>  >>> processor which combines neural processes with symbolic reasoning.
>>  >>> https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/pp/prodview-6luxq22pgmehe
>>
>> Cost/hour: $200,000.00
>>
>> LoL
>>
>> Bye
>>
>> P.S.: If it could do some quant trading magic, one would
>> possibly pay so much. But Logtalk is simply too lame:
>>
>> Version release notes
>> XVM Engine v10.2.4 is the full engine capable of running
>> all XVM and Logtalk programs, excluding for logtalk tools.
>>
>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> The 9122171.18175435 is a little offending, what if one
>>> keeps a federal secret after the 6 fraction digit?
>>>
>>> Bye
>>>
>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Ok, leaving the beaten path of my Prolog system
>>>> probing, and look at some newer beast.
>>>>
>>>> This looks bad:
>>>>
>>>> ?- format('~6f', [pi**14]), nl.
>>>> 9122171.18175435
>>>>
>>>> Expected result:
>>>>
>>>> ?- format('~6f', [pi**14]), nl.
>>>> 9122171.181754
>>>>
>>>> Bye
>>>>
>>>> BTW: Tested using this test tester:
>>>>
>>>> X-Machines Virtual Machine (XVM™) is a neurosymbolic virtual AI 
>>>> processor which combines neural processes with symbolic reasoning.
>>>> https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/pp/prodview-6luxq22pgmehe
>>>>
>>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>>  >>> See also:
>>>>  >>> https://prolog-lang.org/ImprovementsForum/0110-format.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
> 

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

#15752 — Train yourself to become a nosomatic AI chirurgeon (Re: Forget your Sputnik Commodore C64 with 8088 [Logic Tiling])

Hi,

A nosomatic AI chirurgeon is a halfling student
of sickness, and a master of the ebb and flow of
the energies of life and death of data packets.

He is a air bender, water bender and earth bender
in one person, using OpenVINO to juggle with
CPU, GPU and NPU.

Last but not least he can freely switch between
symbolic and neural representation of knowledge
forms, there is no abyss for him.

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> The nature of time has puzzled people -- from the ancient
> Greeks to the present day -- Especially the nosomatic
> perception of time is a hot topic now.
> 
> How does time evolve inside a GPU with multiple units
> or a CPU with multiple cores. GPUs even having multiple
> logical threads inside a group.
> 
> Forget the von Neumann model of computing. You need
> a total new thinking of shared memory and more
> message passing, and have a grip of vector and
> 
> matrix tiling of problems. π-WAM already deploys
> logic tiling in its Seven Eleven demonstrator. So forget
> everything you have learned in your BASIC computer
> 
> course for your Sputnik Commodore C64 with 8088.
> 
> Bye
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Hyperspectral measurements for inter-calibration,
>> reached a significant milestone this summer.
>>
>> The naval observatory only uses fidget spinners
>> to measure time, so forget Colorado.
>>
>> Bye
>>
>> Ross Finlayson schrieb:
>>  >
>>  > So, there's at least three accounts of what can define "measurement of
>>  > time", in the micro, meso, and macro.
>>  >
>>  > Then these days pretty much the world relies on "the naval observatory
>>  > in Colorado" if not so much "the clock tower in Greenwich", as with
>>  > regards to ye olde UTC, CUT, "Zulu", and so on, time.
>>  >
>>  > About relativity theory and "measuring rods and clocks", then, it's
>>  > similar that "metric and norm" for "length and distance" also has
>>  > about the Planckian what are "iota-values" as it would be, or, "Pauli
>>  > Plancks", or "Dirac's Pauli Plancks", of measuring space, vis-a-vis,
>>  > measuring time.
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > So, there are at least three accounts of what defines measuring time,
>>  > and at least three accounts of what defines measuring space.
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > Then, since relativity theory is defined by what does that,
>>  > it has the various ways, to so fulfill doing that.
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > Yeah, I know, most "professional physicists" only have one of those
>>  > on their little note-card with which they passed graduate school.
>>
>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Ross Finlayson schrieb:
>>>  > Or shaves pennies.
>>>
>>>  >>> X-Machines Virtual Machine (XVM™) is a neurosymbolic virtual AI
>>>  >>> processor which combines neural processes with symbolic reasoning.
>>>  >>> https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/pp/prodview-6luxq22pgmehe
>>>
>>> Cost/hour: $200,000.00
>>>
>>> LoL
>>>
>>> Bye
>>>
>>> P.S.: If it could do some quant trading magic, one would
>>> possibly pay so much. But Logtalk is simply too lame:
>>>
>>> Version release notes
>>> XVM Engine v10.2.4 is the full engine capable of running
>>> all XVM and Logtalk programs, excluding for logtalk tools.
>>>
>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> The 9122171.18175435 is a little offending, what if one
>>>> keeps a federal secret after the 6 fraction digit?
>>>>
>>>> Bye
>>>>
>>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok, leaving the beaten path of my Prolog system
>>>>> probing, and look at some newer beast.
>>>>>
>>>>> This looks bad:
>>>>>
>>>>> ?- format('~6f', [pi**14]), nl.
>>>>> 9122171.18175435
>>>>>
>>>>> Expected result:
>>>>>
>>>>> ?- format('~6f', [pi**14]), nl.
>>>>> 9122171.181754
>>>>>
>>>>> Bye
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW: Tested using this test tester:
>>>>>
>>>>> X-Machines Virtual Machine (XVM™) is a neurosymbolic virtual AI 
>>>>> processor which combines neural processes with symbolic reasoning.
>>>>> https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/pp/prodview-6luxq22pgmehe
>>>>>
>>>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>>>  >>> See also:
>>>>>  >>> https://prolog-lang.org/ImprovementsForum/0110-format.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
> 

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web