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 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#15756 — Re: Forget your Sputnik Commodore C64 with 8088 [Logic Tiling] (Re: Hyperspectral Measurements for Inter-Calibration)

Mild Shock wrote:
> 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.

But here you are to explain it all. It's easy for you because with your 
Creationist fantasies the Earth is only 6,000 years old. It's the height 
of foolishness, but you guys profess it because I guess it's not a 
simple matter to demonstrate the geological core that clearly indicates 
billions of years. You can hand wave that away and point at the Ming 
Dynasty as the first men walking the Earth. How simple time is for you. 
Simple, but entirely mistaken and false.

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

#15759 — Brova you enjoy made up nonsense? [Einstein tech cult] (Re: Hyperspectral Measurements for Inter-Calibration (Re: Logtalk big time salami slicing)

Hi,

You refuse to undertand the NVIDIA Volta
archecture. You claim to like in the
sense of "That's a good quote" some

completely made up nonsense? Bravo! I just
copied a nasa article title, which had nothing
to do with "time" per se:

CLARREO Pathfinder
https://science.nasa.gov/mission/clarreo-pathfinder/

Its more a very big vacuum cleaner, that can
scan highly accurate measurements of sunlight
reflected by the Earth and the Moon.

You are just a moron, that still feels harware
evelution a treat, but would like to see data
from a Einstein pathfinder. As if this

is not the ultimate tech cult?

As always you suck, like nobody else ever
sucked on the usenet. You are just completely
bonkers, the bigger crank than Archimedes

Plutonion and John Gabriel.

Bye

Ross Finlayson schrieb:
> Well, like Einstein says, relativity is defined
> by at least two different clocks -
> might as well be three.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a good quote, I quote me on that.


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]

#15761 — NVIDIA Einstein and Q8.24 RGB Values [Earth and Star Gazers] (Re: Brova you enjoy made up nonsense?)

Hi

BTW, NVIDIA had a GPU card named Einstein and
an Einstein project. I guess these earth
and star gazers would like to number crunch

images with Q8.24 RGB values. Now Einstein
name was adopted for another GPU Project:

We had a number of tutorials on CarpetX
and science codes based on CarpetX, the new,
GPU-enabled version of the Einstein Toolkit.
https://einsteintoolkit.org/

The results show excellent agreement with
the well-established LazEv code. Scaling
tests on CPU (Frontera) and GPU (Vista)
clusters reveal significant performance

gains, with the new implementation achieving
improved speed and scalability compared
to the Carpet-based version.
GPU-accelerated Subcycling Time
Integration with the Einstein Toolkit
https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.09629

GPUs were traditionally used by earth and
star gazers early on, because they can
speed up the scanning of large areas,

also in 4 dimensions, i.e. space and time.

Have Fun!

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> You refuse to undertand the NVIDIA Volta
> archecture. You claim to like in the
> sense of "That's a good quote" some
> 
> completely made up nonsense? Bravo! I just
> copied a nasa article title, which had nothing
> to do with "time" per se:
> 
> CLARREO Pathfinder
> https://science.nasa.gov/mission/clarreo-pathfinder/
> 
> Its more a very big vacuum cleaner, that can
> scan highly accurate measurements of sunlight
> reflected by the Earth and the Moon.
> 
> You are just a moron, that still feels harware
> evelution a treat, but would like to see data
> from a Einstein pathfinder. As if this
> 
> is not the ultimate tech cult?
> 
> As always you suck, like nobody else ever
> sucked on the usenet. You are just completely
> bonkers, the bigger crank than Archimedes
> 
> Plutonion and John Gabriel.
> 
> Bye
> 
> Ross Finlayson schrieb:
>> Well, like Einstein says, relativity is defined
>> by at least two different clocks -
>> might as well be three.
>>
>>
>>
>> That's a good quote, I quote me on that.
> 
> 
> 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]

#15762 — Just lookup orbital AI and SpaceX (Re: NVIDIA Einstein and Q8.24 RGB Values)

Hi,

"Space-based data centers or orbital AI
infrastructure are proposed concepts to
build AI data centers in the sun-synchronous
orbit or other orbits using space-
based solar power.

Space-based edge computing has historical
roots in military architectures designed
to bypass the latency of ground-based
targeting networks."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_data_center

Just to give you an idea. Translated to
the Einstein pathfinders. If the sensors
are in space, why not do the bulk processing

already in space?

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi
> 
> BTW, NVIDIA had a GPU card named Einstein and
> an Einstein project. I guess these earth
> and star gazers would like to number crunch
> 
> images with Q8.24 RGB values. Now Einstein
> name was adopted for another GPU Project:
> 
> We had a number of tutorials on CarpetX
> and science codes based on CarpetX, the new,
> GPU-enabled version of the Einstein Toolkit.
> https://einsteintoolkit.org/
> 
> The results show excellent agreement with
> the well-established LazEv code. Scaling
> tests on CPU (Frontera) and GPU (Vista)
> clusters reveal significant performance
> 
> gains, with the new implementation achieving
> improved speed and scalability compared
> to the Carpet-based version.
> GPU-accelerated Subcycling Time
> Integration with the Einstein Toolkit
> https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.09629
> 
> GPUs were traditionally used by earth and
> star gazers early on, because they can
> speed up the scanning of large areas,
> 
> also in 4 dimensions, i.e. space and time.
> 
> Have Fun!
> 
> Bye
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> You refuse to undertand the NVIDIA Volta
>> archecture. You claim to like in the
>> sense of "That's a good quote" some
>>
>> completely made up nonsense? Bravo! I just
>> copied a nasa article title, which had nothing
>> to do with "time" per se:
>>
>> CLARREO Pathfinder
>> https://science.nasa.gov/mission/clarreo-pathfinder/
>>
>> Its more a very big vacuum cleaner, that can
>> scan highly accurate measurements of sunlight
>> reflected by the Earth and the Moon.
>>
>> You are just a moron, that still feels harware
>> evelution a treat, but would like to see data
>> from a Einstein pathfinder. As if this
>>
>> is not the ultimate tech cult?
>>
>> As always you suck, like nobody else ever
>> sucked on the usenet. You are just completely
>> bonkers, the bigger crank than Archimedes
>>
>> Plutonion and John Gabriel.
>>
>> Bye

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

#15771 — Re: Brova you enjoy made up nonsense? [Einstein tech cult] (Re: Hyperspectral Measurements for Inter-Calibration (Re: Logtalk big time salami slicing)

On 07/27/2026 08:08 AM, Mild Shock wrote:
> Hi,
>
> You refuse to undertand the NVIDIA Volta
> archecture. You claim to like in the
> sense of "That's a good quote" some
>
> completely made up nonsense? Bravo! I just
> copied a nasa article title, which had nothing
> to do with "time" per se:
>
> CLARREO Pathfinder
> https://science.nasa.gov/mission/clarreo-pathfinder/
>
> Its more a very big vacuum cleaner, that can
> scan highly accurate measurements of sunlight
> reflected by the Earth and the Moon.
>
> You are just a moron, that still feels harware
> evelution a treat, but would like to see data
> from a Einstein pathfinder. As if this
>
> is not the ultimate tech cult?
>
> As always you suck, like nobody else ever
> sucked on the usenet. You are just completely
> bonkers, the bigger crank than Archimedes
>
> Plutonion and John Gabriel.
>
> Bye
>
> Ross Finlayson schrieb:
>> Well, like Einstein says, relativity is defined
>> by at least two different clocks -
>> might as well be three.
>>
>>
>>
>> That's a good quote, I quote me on that.
>
>
> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

That addled nincompoop, it cut the original context.
That's misrepresentation for you:  making idiots worse.



Perhaps one of the best references for Einstein's theory of relativity
is Einstein's "Out of My Later Years", though it's a bit biographical in
the beginning and end, the middle sees laid out very specifically
what Einstein says is "relativity theory" ("a simple negative
stipulation").

The space contraction comes first from FitzGerald, decades before
Lorentz, and various accounts of Lorentzians, any account of which
models "relativity theory", make for real space contraction, in GR,
then Einstein for example separates the "spatial" and "spacial" of
"GR" and "SR".

Einstein also takes pains to clarify that "SR is local", then as with
regards to a clock hypothesis _and_ a universal clock hypothesis,
you can read Einstein explaining why it's so.


Here there are quite a variety of Lorentzians, about things like
Levi-Civita's "the indefiniteness of ds^2".

The plain pure SR-ians are partial, incomplete, and merely local.



Much like "meeting the Lorentzian" makes for a model of
relativity theory, "meeting the Schreodingerian" makes
for models of quantum mechanics.

So, a "doubly-objective relativity theory" may have
both relativity of motion and aside relativity of
space, so that once again there's an aether theory
in it, for example about how in "Sidelights on Relativity",
that Einstein makes accords for an aether in the theory.

Similarly for Born's infinite self-energy and Feynman's
renormalizibility of theories, after Reichenbach about
"Schroedingerians", the quantum mechanics can be a
continuous, deterministic quantum mechanics.

Then a "clock hypothesis" which is usually for anyone
a "universal clock hypothesis" and not the apologet-a-lit's
"not-a-clock-hypothesis-hypothesis" is a usual idea, that
in general relativity usually keeps the geodesy (or other
accounts of the world-lines) current everywhere constantly,
or establishes all matters of time-dependence and time-ordering
in any account of quantum theory.


A) The geodesy's instantaneously evaluated everywhere over everywhere
all the time.

B) The time-ordering and time-dependence defines the action of QM.



>

By the time orthogonality, unitarity, _and_ complementarity get
satisfied, a universal "time" is always about the most moderating
influence.


About the charge-parity-time symmetries, charge symmetry and
parity symmetry have been broken, yet time symmetry has _never_
been falsified: making of itself that as a large overall experiment its
data supporting a "universal clock hypothesis".

Lagrangians are universally parameterized by _time_,
and, force the usual account as a vector is
always itself a function of _time_. (Instead of a tensor, ....)


Then, Einstein could be read as "you know, sometimes people read
too much into what I say, ...", then also "well, you know, Einstein's
relativity theory that's Newtonian in the limit is very good at that,
not saying much, actually I have a bit of a problem with the Newtonian
and by that I mean the Galilean, so, here's a reasoning why the
space-contraction if it would be would vary for space-contraction-linear
and space-contraction-rotational, and about classical mechanics
itself before we get to the Mach-ian and a total field theory since
there's always an extra-local aspect to any field theory, which physics is".





Now I notice that some recent literature has been absconding with
the term "time-dependence" after "time-ordering", this is that
various accounts of causality and quantum causality which Reichenbach
says that Schroedingerians (as systems) as they would be have only
one job about "quantum causality", that in the recent literature
there are accounts of

A) "clock hypothesis" that's _not_ a clock hypothesis
B) "time-dependence" that's _not_ time-dependence

and other usual accounts since "negative time" (that's since
time-symmetry has never been falsified, has always been falsified,
as about "there are no closed finite time-like curves"),
that those are considered incompatible with the rest of
the literature.

So, those modern accounts worming around matters of definition
are as of a Babel-style babble their abuses of language.


Then about notions like "A-Theory" and "B-Theory" of time, ...,
here there's a universal clock hypothesis and clocks either
slow or meet, so there's never "negative time", and then
that in a convolutive sort of framework, for complementarity,
the stacks of derivation are re-visitable. (Then here there's
that "The A-Theory" as an axiomless then formal system with principles
of the Inverse and Thorough Reason" is so named a decade or more
before these other "A-Theory" accounts, and these days is
further expounded upon as "thea-theory", then with quite a
thorough attachment to both the idealistic and analytical traditions,
for an overall account of reason.)



Most people understand "relativity theory" naturally
as having their own account of having a perspective among perspectives,
and theorizing things as from more than one perspective,
that's mostly all there is to it, then for the more formally
specified bits about "relativity of motion" making for "relativity of
space", a "doubly-objective" relativity theory, then that this gets into
natural definitions of space-frames and frame-spaces or Rahme-Raumen and
Raume-Rahmen, then that the L-principle is a usual enough thing, most
people with any sense in their head who aren't entirely self-ish
"understand" "relativity theory".

Then they also usually understand "absolutes" first, also.



>

When thinking about "theory", I like the idea of having just one theory.

I think you may also, though if you're a nominalist fictionalist who's
a fragmented pluralist and absent ideals of regularities and rulialities
their repleteness in truth and causality for infinity and continuity, it
may be difficult.

That said the idea that all the accounts amount makes for a usual
sort of "one-world" hypothesis and a "universal clock hypothesis",
usually enough according to a "cosmological principle" that the
laws of nature are the same everywhere, even if the finite creatures
that usual thinking and feeling beings are have limits.

Thusly for paradox-free reason and constancy in definition for
a constant, consistent, complete, concrete theory, it's a usual
notion that students and researchers in "Foundations" find appealing.

And compelling, ....



>

Also there's that relativity theory and quantum mechanics disagree
with each other "120 orders of decimal magnitude", also there's
that neither has gravity in the theory, and neither has "rest" itself,
though of course there's a usual notion of "rest frame" and "particle"
and as about "the geodesy" and "the weakest force".


So, a reasonable sort of theory would be putting gravity into the
theories as alike a fall-gravity for the geodesy (or orbifold) for
relativity theories so that energy conservation isn't constantly
violated everywhere, and fall-gravity for the strong nuclear force
for quantum mechanics so that energy conservation isn't constantly
violated everywhere.


fall-gravity


>

That's why there are all the other systems of units.


>

What about that _length_ and _distance_ have different units,
about the _metric_ and _norm_, about _distance_ being _length_
in _time_, that time (its elapsed duration) could be defined
according to space-contraction instead of the other way around?


According to "references", ....


Otherwise those are going to vary under gravity, under acceleration,
and so on.


While there's often mentioned the GPS reference frequency,
not so much the GPS station operator's and station-keeping guide,
with that receivers >> stations.

So, another way to identify a metrology of time is "quasars"
instead of "hyper-fine transitions of the cesium atom,
in a museum in France".




It follows from the functional-freedom bit and various other
reasonings (that relativity theory and quantum theory falsify
each other).

If "creationists" is to mean "Big-Bang cosmologists with their
inflationary cosmology and expanding universe", that's the cosmology
they have, yet, there are others.


Of course everybody knows that the Earth's ephemeris is according
to "parameterized post-Newtonian", and that the definitions of the
quantum mechanics these days include gamma or quadru/multi-pole moments.



The NIST Particle Data Group CODATA releases the measured values
of fundamental physical constants every few years, the small ones
get not only more precise, also _smaller_, helping also inform that
the "running constants" of physics get involved.

So, physics is according to NIST CODATA, with SI: Systeme
Internationale, a reduced second, i.e. not first and quite reduced.


Then most people are also unawares how things like Boltzmann and
Planck constants as physical constants are much mathematical constants
that reflect their placement in terms for algebraic reductions again,
for example the roots of x^2 +-x +-1 like the molar gas constant in
the Boltzmann constant, then as with regards to Planck constant about
what mathematical reductionism is ongoing in the Planckian, why
those aren't exactly "physical" constants.


Anyways that "time" can be defined by "an average field of quasar
measurements" is a thing.


>

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


>

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.


>

Thanks for writing.

I'm curious how to interpret the smiley, usually enough it's
a reaction of spontaneous happiness, yet in some regards it's
as like the monkey's grimace that's usually aggression or fear.

Then, the idea that there are "collective clocks" and that for
time there are independent metrologies of time as about

the atomic clock,
the synchroton clock,
and the quasar clock,

that would advise a lot of the context about "the clock hypothesis",
and also the role of clocks with rigid measuring rods of length,
for the metrology (the science of measurement) of space,
the metrologies, a metrology.







See, by ignoring trolls and omitting my put-downs of them,
concatenating my posts makes natural linear narrative.

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

#14977 — 2025 Obituary: Skew Confluence (aka “Stews” 😆) (Was: 😂 "Plog-like" - that should be the official term!)

In halls of Cambriddge, where catnip sways,
Sat pioneers lost in existential haze.
“Here lies a term!” they cried, “both bound and free,
A bag of possibilities, as far as we see.”

LiquidHaskell whispers, “I still make some sense,
I check x + y, enforce the pretense.
But only 1% — the rest, pure ado,
Existentials and predicates, I haven’t a clue.”

Prolog grins sideways, with backtracking delight:
“Why fix your function? Let each path take flight!
X and Y and Z — all three may roam,
I’ll find a solution, or many, for home.”

Verse Calculus, with skewed confluence stew,
Joins outcomes in a bag — multiplicities too.
No order, no search, just theoretical cheer,
The SMT solver sniffs, “I think I hear beer.”

Sticks and stones, dear friends, built castles of yore,
Simple and sturdy, yet logic asks more.
Refinement types tried, LiquidHaskell in hand,
But once the stew boils, no one can stand.

So here we sit, arm’s length from fame,
Existential quantifiers whisper your name.
A mockery? Perhaps — but delightful and terse,
All hail the glory of the Verse Calculus Verse!

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]

#14978 — Backdoor Monkeys from Eternal September (Re: 2025 Obituary: Skew Confluence (aka “Stews” 😆))

Hi,

Thats why open source slowly becomes a failure.
Because it is full of nickname shape shifters,
that hide behind anonymity. SWI-Prolog is no

exception. A bunch of anonymous crack heads.
Its not some Script Kiddies. They are basically
mafia hackers. And if you have some high CPU

process that doesn't automatically go away,
you possibly got a backdoor via an opensource project.
Sovereign Tech Fund (STF) will not help, since

they will shy away from loosing their anonymity.
And after all the mafia hackers are also well
endowed, have their own funding.

Bye

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

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

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


Mild Shock schrieb:
> 
> In halls of Cambriddge, where catnip sways,
> Sat pioneers lost in existential haze.
> “Here lies a term!” they cried, “both bound and free,
> A bag of possibilities, as far as we see.”
> 
> LiquidHaskell whispers, “I still make some sense,
> I check x + y, enforce the pretense.
> But only 1% — the rest, pure ado,
> Existentials and predicates, I haven’t a clue.”
> 
> Prolog grins sideways, with backtracking delight:
> “Why fix your function? Let each path take flight!
> X and Y and Z — all three may roam,
> I’ll find a solution, or many, for home.”
> 
> Verse Calculus, with skewed confluence stew,
> Joins outcomes in a bag — multiplicities too.
> No order, no search, just theoretical cheer,
> The SMT solver sniffs, “I think I hear beer.”
> 
> Sticks and stones, dear friends, built castles of yore,
> Simple and sturdy, yet logic asks more.
> Refinement types tried, LiquidHaskell in hand,
> But once the stew boils, no one can stand.
> 
> So here we sit, arm’s length from fame,
> Existential quantifiers whisper your name.
> A mockery? Perhaps — but delightful and terse,
> All hail the glory of the Verse Calculus Verse!
> 
> 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]

#14979 — From Vibe-Coding to Vibe-Sniffing (Re: Backdoor Monkeys from Eternal September)

Hi,

Ok the idea is trivial. Vibecoding is pair
programming, with an AI counterpart. But what
is Vibesniffing? Ok, now we finally hit the

critique expert system domain. First study this:

Mondrian Code Review On The Web
Google Tech Talks - Guido van Rossum
November 30, 2006
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMql3Di4Kgc

Vibesniffing would be with an AI counterpart. Like
AI Gerrit etc.. Doesn’t look like LiquidHaskell
has made it an imprint here? ChatGPT thinks since

LiquidHaskell is not made for "how code feels".
I strongly oppose to this view. Code review
could be inherently fuzzy, since most

software evolves through:

- Imperfect requirements
- Imperfect code
- Iterative refinement
- Etc.. etc..

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> Thats why open source slowly becomes a failure.
> Because it is full of nickname shape shifters,
> that hide behind anonymity. SWI-Prolog is no
> 
> exception. A bunch of anonymous crack heads.
> Its not some Script Kiddies. They are basically
> mafia hackers. And if you have some high CPU
> 
> process that doesn't automatically go away,
> you possibly got a backdoor via an opensource project.
> Sovereign Tech Fund (STF) will not help, since
> 
> they will shy away from loosing their anonymity.
> And after all the mafia hackers are also well
> endowed, have their own funding.
> 
> Bye
> 
> ------------------ cut here ----------------
> 
> 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
> 
> ------------------ cut here ----------------
> 
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>
>> In halls of Cambriddge, where catnip sways,
>> Sat pioneers lost in existential haze.
>> “Here lies a term!” they cried, “both bound and free,
>> A bag of possibilities, as far as we see.”
>>
>> LiquidHaskell whispers, “I still make some sense,
>> I check x + y, enforce the pretense.
>> But only 1% — the rest, pure ado,
>> Existentials and predicates, I haven’t a clue.”
>>
>> Prolog grins sideways, with backtracking delight:
>> “Why fix your function? Let each path take flight!
>> X and Y and Z — all three may roam,
>> I’ll find a solution, or many, for home.”
>>
>> Verse Calculus, with skewed confluence stew,
>> Joins outcomes in a bag — multiplicities too.
>> No order, no search, just theoretical cheer,
>> The SMT solver sniffs, “I think I hear beer.”
>>
>> Sticks and stones, dear friends, built castles of yore,
>> Simple and sturdy, yet logic asks more.
>> Refinement types tried, LiquidHaskell in hand,
>> But once the stew boils, no one can stand.
>>
>> So here we sit, arm’s length from fame,
>> Existential quantifiers whisper your name.
>> A mockery? Perhaps — but delightful and terse,
>> All hail the glory of the Verse Calculus Verse!
>>
>> 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]

#14980 — From Feferman to Peyton Jones, no luck with ∃ (Was: 2025 Obituary: Skew Confluence (aka “Stews” 😆))

Hi,

Now this is an interesting find. It seems
not only the Verse Calculus by Peyton Jones
hit a wall with existential quantifier ∃.

Especially the type free case. Its like in
Rossy Boys Russell thing, people are not
anymore trained to think about "individuals",

the are more bothered by "bags", because this
is what the Antinomies of the formal revolution
tought us. But the formal revolution has also

some nice easter eggs, like Fefermans OST
("Operational Set Theory"), an early form of
Predicte Abstraction. With each formula A is

associated a term t_A such that:

     ∀x[A(x) <=> t_A(x) = tt]

https://math.stanford.edu/~feferman/papers/OperationalST-I.pdf

The nice thing about the t_A, its a term,
possibly a open or closed term, depending
on whether there are parameters, and thats

what I am now doing for Arrow Functions, when
the Prolog systems compiles 0rReference(P1,..,Pk),
its basically a term, an individual, that

later gets called by call/n, which makes the
translation for individual to proposition.

Bye

P.S.: But somehow Feferman shyed away from
definition the unbounded existential quantifier
as a projection, there is a easy geometric

intution, and every SQL database can do it.
Instead he falls back to some Hilber Epsilon
analogue such as:

Given A(x) = ∃yB(x, y) and t_B for B(x, y);
then we can take t_A = λx.t_Bx(C(λyt_Bxy)),
using the general choice operator C.

https://math.stanford.edu/~feferman/papers/OperationalST-I.pdf

Funny!

Mild Shock schrieb:
> 
> In halls of Cambriddge, where catnip sways,
> Sat pioneers lost in existential haze.
> “Here lies a term!” they cried, “both bound and free,
> A bag of possibilities, as far as we see.”
> 
> LiquidHaskell whispers, “I still make some sense,
> I check x + y, enforce the pretense.
> But only 1% — the rest, pure ado,
> Existentials and predicates, I haven’t a clue.”
> 
> Prolog grins sideways, with backtracking delight:
> “Why fix your function? Let each path take flight!
> X and Y and Z — all three may roam,
> I’ll find a solution, or many, for home.”
> 
> Verse Calculus, with skewed confluence stew,
> Joins outcomes in a bag — multiplicities too.
> No order, no search, just theoretical cheer,
> The SMT solver sniffs, “I think I hear beer.”
> 
> Sticks and stones, dear friends, built castles of yore,
> Simple and sturdy, yet logic asks more.
> Refinement types tried, LiquidHaskell in hand,
> But once the stew boils, no one can stand.
> 
> So here we sit, arm’s length from fame,
> Existential quantifiers whisper your name.
> A mockery? Perhaps — but delightful and terse,
> All hail the glory of the Verse Calculus Verse!
> 
> 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]

#14981 — Taxon (TBox) / Affirm (ABox) was a thing in the 90s? (e: The quantifer ∃ is just the Combinator K (Schönfinkels C)?)

Hi,

I really wonder what happened with:

Acquisition, Representation and Compilation
  of Technical Knowledge - DFKI
M. M. Richter et al. - September 1991
https://publikationen.sulb.uni-saarland.de/bitstream/20.500.11880/24986/1/RR_91_27.pdf

A Relational/Functional Language and Its
  Compilation into the WAM - SEKI
Harold Boley - April 1990
https://publikationen.sulb.uni-saarland.de/bitstream/20.500.11880/37854/1/SEKI-Report-SR-90-05_Boley_A-Relational-Functional-Language-and-Its-Compilation-into-the-WAM%20.pdf

Did the Extended WAM have Arrow Functions?
What does OpenAIs GPT Builder do?

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> Lets say we have an ost term t_A for
> some sets of pairs such that:
> 
>    t_A(x,y) = tt <=> A(x,y)
> 
> Question is what is the term t_B for:
> 
>    B(x) <=> ∃y A(x,y)
> 
> In the Arrow Functions to Horn Clause
> translation. The existential quantifier
> is a feature of the Clark Completion.
> 
> In terms of Cabezas notion:
> 
>    t_B = { ''(x) :- t_a(x,y) }
> 
> Bye
> 
> P.S.: Why does it remind me of the
> K Combinator? Well we have:
> 
> ∃y t_B(K(x,y)) = ∃y t_A(x,y)
> 
> Not sure whether this is useful.
> Although the above is true because the
> combinator K is defined as Kxy = x,
> 
> it can be quite misleading, since
> this here does not necessarely hold:
> 
> /* Not necessarely */
> { y | t_B(K(x,y)) } = { y | t_A(x,y) }
> 
> So if Feferman had the empty set, he could
> also check for inhabitation, and bootstrap
> existential quantifier via parameterized bags:
> 
> t_B(x) = ( { y | t_A(x,y) } =/= {} )
> 
> But we don't like bags here..
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Now this is an interesting find. It seems
>> not only the Verse Calculus by Peyton Jones
>> hit a wall with existential quantifier ∃.
>>
>> Especially the type free case. Its like in
>> Rossy Boys Russell thing, people are not
>> anymore trained to think about "individuals",
>>
>> the are more bothered by "bags", because this
>> is what the Antinomies of the formal revolution
>> tought us. But the formal revolution has also
>>
>> some nice easter eggs, like Fefermans OST
>> ("Operational Set Theory"), an early form of
>> Predicte Abstraction. With each formula A is
>>
>> associated a term t_A such that:
>>
>>      ∀x[A(x) <=> t_A(x) = tt]
>>
>> https://math.stanford.edu/~feferman/papers/OperationalST-I.pdf
>>
>> The nice thing about the t_A, its a term,
>> possibly a open or closed term, depending
>> on whether there are parameters, and thats
>>
>> what I am now doing for Arrow Functions, when
>> the Prolog systems compiles 0rReference(P1,..,Pk),
>> its basically a term, an individual, that
>>
>> later gets called by call/n, which makes the
>> translation for individual to proposition.
>>
>> Bye
>>
>> P.S.: But somehow Feferman shyed away from
>> definition the unbounded existential quantifier
>> as a projection, there is a easy geometric
>>
>> intution, and every SQL database can do it.
>> Instead he falls back to some Hilber Epsilon
>> analogue such as:
>>
>> Given A(x) = ∃yB(x, y) and t_B for B(x, y);
>> then we can take t_A = λx.t_Bx(C(λyt_Bxy)),
>> using the general choice operator C.
>>
>> https://math.stanford.edu/~feferman/papers/OperationalST-I.pdf
>>
>> Funny!
>>
>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>
>>> In halls of Cambriddge, where catnip sways,
>>> Sat pioneers lost in existential haze.
>>> “Here lies a term!” they cried, “both bound and free,
>>> A bag of possibilities, as far as we see.”
>>>
>>> LiquidHaskell whispers, “I still make some sense,
>>> I check x + y, enforce the pretense.
>>> But only 1% — the rest, pure ado,
>>> Existentials and predicates, I haven’t a clue.”
>>>
>>> Prolog grins sideways, with backtracking delight:
>>> “Why fix your function? Let each path take flight!
>>> X and Y and Z — all three may roam,
>>> I’ll find a solution, or many, for home.”
>>>
>>> Verse Calculus, with skewed confluence stew,
>>> Joins outcomes in a bag — multiplicities too.
>>> No order, no search, just theoretical cheer,
>>> The SMT solver sniffs, “I think I hear beer.”
>>>
>>> Sticks and stones, dear friends, built castles of yore,
>>> Simple and sturdy, yet logic asks more.
>>> Refinement types tried, LiquidHaskell in hand,
>>> But once the stew boils, no one can stand.
>>>
>>> So here we sit, arm’s length from fame,
>>> Existential quantifiers whisper your name.
>>> A mockery? Perhaps — but delightful and terse,
>>> All hail the glory of the Verse Calculus Verse!
>>>
>>> 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]

#14982 — Not Ross Finlayson: Pioneers Cliff B. Jones (Re: 😂 "Plog-like" - that should be the official term!)

Hi,

Since LiquidHaskell, VerseCalculus, etc.. have
the tasted of reinventing the wheel, and still
gloriously failing, I will start a series of

Pioneers of Program Formalization, and begin
with Cliff B. Jones (born 1 June 1944) is a British
computer scientist. This piece looks a little

archaic, but is full of funny examples:

4.1.2 Examples
Basic statements:
a := p+q
goto Naples
START:CONTINUE:W := 7.993

A formal Definition of Algol 60
August 1972 - Cliff B. Jones et al.
http://homepages.cs.ncl.ac.uk/cliff.jones/publications/Other-TRs/TR12.105.pdf

This post is especially a donation to Ross Finlayson,
who still is seeking consistent foundationalism,
as if Russell had written the Letter to Frege,

just yesterday, while a computer program might
simply goto Naples.

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] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

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

csiph-web