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

Groups > comp.lang.prolog > #12554 > unrolled thread

50 Years of Prolog Nonsense

Started byMostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com>
First post2022-01-28 07:41 -0800
Last post2025-08-01 03:01 +0200
Articles 20 on this page of 200 — 6 participants

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

Contents

  50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-01-28 07:41 -0800
    Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-01-28 07:47 -0800
      Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-01-28 07:49 -0800
        Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-01-28 07:59 -0800
          Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-01-28 08:07 -0800
            Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-01-28 08:10 -0800
              Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-01-28 08:15 -0800
                Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-01-28 08:33 -0800
                  Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-01-28 08:35 -0800
                    Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-01-28 08:52 -0800
                Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-02-02 03:46 -0800
                  Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-02-04 03:18 -0800
                    Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-02-08 06:04 -0800
                      Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2022-02-08 15:06 +0100
                        Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-02-08 13:23 -0800
                          Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-02-08 13:35 -0800
                            Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-02-08 13:42 -0800
                              Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-02-08 13:48 -0800
                                Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-02-08 16:17 -0800
                                  Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-02-08 16:34 -0800
                                    Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-04 01:01 -0700
                                      Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-04 01:03 -0700
                                        Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-04 13:10 -0700
                                          Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-05 15:32 -0700
                                            Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-16 17:30 -0700
                                              Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-17 05:10 -0700
                                                Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-17 13:39 -0700
                                                  Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-17 13:53 -0700
                                                    Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-23 13:57 -0700
                                                      Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-24 05:32 -0700
                                                        Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-24 11:47 -0700
                                                          Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-24 14:49 -0700
                                                            Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2022-04-29 13:27 +0200
                                                              Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2022-04-29 13:37 +0200
                                                                Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-30 08:38 -0700
                                                                  Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-30 08:45 -0700
                                                                    Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-04 11:35 -0700
                                                                      Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 00:21 -0700
                                                                        Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 00:52 -0700
                                                                          Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 00:58 -0700
                                                                            Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 01:23 -0700
                                                                              Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 03:04 -0700
                                                                                Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 03:08 -0700
                                                                                  Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 03:19 -0700
                                                                                    Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 03:56 -0700
                                                                                      Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 04:07 -0700
    Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2022-01-29 15:56 +0100
      Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2022-01-29 16:05 +0100
        Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2022-01-29 16:56 +0100
          Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-01-31 10:37 -0800
            Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-01-31 10:45 -0800
    Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-06-02 12:03 -0700
      Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 02:44 -0700
        Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 02:49 -0700
          Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 03:11 -0700
            Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-06-10 05:54 -0700
              Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-06-25 02:39 -0700
                Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-06-25 02:41 -0700
                  Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-07-12 00:45 -0700
                    Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-07-12 01:03 -0700
                      Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-07-12 01:28 -0700
                        Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-07-12 01:28 -0700
                          Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-07-12 01:40 -0700
                      Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Markus Triska <triska@logic.at> - 2022-07-12 19:25 +0200
                        Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-07-12 14:50 -0700
                          Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-07-12 15:01 -0700
                            Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-07-12 15:16 -0700
                              Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-07-12 16:02 -0700
                                Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-07-12 16:22 -0700
                                  Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-07-12 16:32 -0700
                                    Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-07-13 07:08 -0700
                                      Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-08-04 17:58 -0700
                                        Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-08-04 18:01 -0700
                                          Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-08-05 01:16 -0700
                                            Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-08-05 01:19 -0700
                                              Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-08-05 04:07 -0700
                                                Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-08-05 04:25 -0700
                                                  Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-08-05 07:56 -0700
                                                    Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-08-05 07:56 -0700
                                                      Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-08-05 08:14 -0700
                                                        Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-08-06 12:45 -0700
                                                          Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-08-06 12:47 -0700
                                                            Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-08-07 05:24 -0700
                                                              Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-08-07 05:26 -0700
                                                                Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-08-07 05:32 -0700
                                                                  Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-08-07 06:50 -0700
                                                                    Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-08-08 15:07 -0700
                                                                      Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-08-08 15:16 -0700
                                                                        Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-08-09 03:23 -0700
                                                                          Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-08-09 12:27 -0700
                                                                            Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-08-09 12:33 -0700
                                                                              Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-08-13 04:13 -0700
                                                                                Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-08-13 04:41 -0700
                                                                                  Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-08-13 05:19 -0700
                                                                                    Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-08-13 07:20 -0700
                                                                                      Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-08-13 07:30 -0700
                                                                                        Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-08-13 07:46 -0700
                                                                                          Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-08-18 07:16 -0700
                                                                                            Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-08-18 07:17 -0700
                                                                                              Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-08-18 15:13 -0700
                                                                                                Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-08-28 15:04 -0700
                                                                                                  Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-09-21 10:42 -0700
                                                                                                    Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-09-22 06:13 -0700
                                                                                                      Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-09-22 06:23 -0700
                                                                                                        Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-09-22 06:41 -0700
                                                                                                          Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-09-23 07:44 -0700
                                                                                                            Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-09-25 07:10 -0700
                                                                                                              Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-09-25 07:11 -0700
                                                                                                                Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-09-25 08:55 -0700
                                                                                                                  Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-09-25 08:56 -0700
                                                  Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Markus Triska <triska@logic.at> - 2023-08-31 21:32 +0200
                                                    Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-09-01 12:02 -0700
                                                      Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-04-09 00:15 +0200
                                                        Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-04-09 00:20 +0200
                Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2023-05-20 14:09 +0200
                  Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-20 05:46 -0700
                    Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-20 05:48 -0700
                      Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-20 06:16 -0700
                    Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-27 04:51 -0700
                      Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-01 14:10 -0700
                        Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-01 14:11 -0700
                          Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-01 14:17 -0700
                            Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-03 05:20 -0700
                              Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-03 09:10 -0700
                        Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-02 00:44 -0700
                  PIPs from the Basilisk Chamber (Was: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-09-29 17:22 +0200
                    Prolog Pearls I: Barklund and Millroth (Was: PIPs from the Basilisk Chamber) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-11-08 15:07 +0100
                      Prolog Pearls II: Barklund and Millroth (Was: PIPs from the Basilisk Chamber) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-11-08 15:29 +0100
                        change_arg/3 = nb_linkarg/3 ? (Was: PIPs from the Basilisk Chamber) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-11-08 18:37 +0100
                          Re: change_arg/3 = nb_linkarg/3 ? (Was: PIPs from the Basilisk Chamber) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-11-08 18:39 +0100
                    Re: PIPs from the Basilisk Chamber (Was: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-11-09 15:47 +0100
                      Re: PIPs from the Basilisk Chamber (Was: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-11-09 15:48 +0100
    Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2022-09-25 21:19 +0200
      Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2022-09-25 21:21 +0200
        Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-09-27 10:11 -0700
          Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2022-09-27 19:13 +0200
            Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-09-28 03:33 -0700
              Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-09-28 03:34 -0700
                Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-09-28 03:37 -0700
              Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-09-28 03:56 -0700
                Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-09-28 05:01 -0700
              Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-09-28 06:44 -0700
    Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-12-18 16:21 -0800
      Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-12-18 16:22 -0800
        Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-12-25 16:00 -0800
          Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-12-30 21:53 -0800
            Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-12-30 22:03 -0800
              Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-12-30 22:29 -0800
                Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-01-02 10:51 -0800
                  Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-01-03 21:17 -0800
                    Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-01-03 21:36 -0800
                      Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-01-03 21:50 -0800
                        Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-01-07 07:35 -0800
                          Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-01-14 07:53 -0800
                            Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-01-22 08:54 -0800
                              Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-01-22 10:02 -0800
                                Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-01-22 15:37 -0800
                                  Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-01-29 07:19 -0800
                                    Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-01-29 07:20 -0800
                                      Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-01-29 07:32 -0800
                                        Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-01-29 07:55 -0800
                                          Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-01-30 07:06 -0800
                                            Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-02-06 00:49 -0800
                                              Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-02-06 00:53 -0800
                                                Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-02-20 06:23 -0800
                                                  Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-02-20 06:31 -0800
                                              How working with GitHub feels (Was: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-03-13 14:45 +0100
                                                Re: How working with GitHub feels (Was: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-03-13 15:05 +0100
    Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-03-12 09:12 -0700
      Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-03-12 09:14 -0700
        Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-03-14 17:57 -0700
          Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2023-03-15 02:01 +0100
            Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2023-03-15 02:09 +0100
              Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-03-28 06:07 -0700
                Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-03-28 06:30 -0700
                  Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-03-28 10:04 -0700
                    Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-03-28 10:05 -0700
                      Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-04-02 15:10 -0700
    Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-25 08:48 -0700
      Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-25 08:53 -0700
        Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-25 09:02 -0700
    Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-29 04:57 -0700
      Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-29 05:10 -0700
        Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2023-07-29 23:16 +0200
          Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-30 05:06 -0700
            Re: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 01:09 -0700
      How I got rid of term_variables/3 (Was: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-11-10 12:37 +0100
        Re: How I got rid of term_variables/3 (Was: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-11-10 12:40 +0100
          Re: How I got rid of term_variables/3 (Was: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-11-10 12:42 +0100
      How Prolog became an education nightmare (Was: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-11-12 16:30 +0100
        Re: How Prolog became an education nightmare (Was: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-11-12 16:32 +0100
          Re: How Prolog became an education nightmare (Was: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-11-14 05:14 +0100
            Re: How Prolog became an education nightmare (Was: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-11-14 05:24 +0100
            Re: How Prolog became an education nightmare (Was: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense) Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2024-11-14 21:21 +0100
              Re: How Prolog became an education nightmare (Was: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-11-14 21:58 +0100
                Re: How Prolog became an education nightmare (Was: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-11-14 22:10 +0100
                Re: How Prolog became an education nightmare (Was: 50 Years of Prolog Nonsense) Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2024-11-15 15:42 +0100
        Mode yfy to the rescue (Was: How Prolog became an education nightmare) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-11-14 22:30 +0100
        Cyclic term predicates suffer from ambiguity (Was: How Prolog became an education nightmare) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-08-01 02:47 +0200
          An ISO term_variables/2 for Cyclic Terms (Was: Cyclic term predicates suffer from ambiguity) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-08-01 03:01 +0200

Page 6 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 10  Next page →

#13183

FromMostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com>
Date2022-08-28 15:04 -0700
Message-ID<ff7f2bbc-eb9a-4351-9301-24e1e9ddaf0cn@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#13165
Wanna know whats the Cancer of Prolog?

Try this:

fizzbuzz :-
        foreach(between(1, 100, X), print_item(X)).

print_item(X) :-
        (  0 is X mod 15
        -> print('FizzBuzz')
        ;  0 is X mod 3
        -> print('Fizz')
        ;  0 is X mod 5
        -> print('Buzz')
        ;  print(X)
        ),
        nl.

https://rosettacode.org/wiki/FizzBuzz#Prolog

And then try this in (Ciao Prolog Playground or search their documentation):

?- foreach(member(X, [1,2,3]), print(X)).
{ERROR: No handle found for thrown exception
error(existence_error(procedure,'user:foreach'/2),'user:foreach'/2)}

LoL

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

#13240

FromMostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com>
Date2022-09-21 10:42 -0700
Message-ID<48ee1793-a18b-4108-98ef-e628d7b17527n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#13183
What does your Prolog float/1 and your Prolog (**)/2 do?
Does it do the right thing, or some nonsense?

Here are some results:

/* Jekejeke Prolog 1.5.4 */
?- aggregate_all(count, (between(1,1000000,N),
    float(N)**10 =\= float(N^10)), C).
C = 551.

/* Trealla Prolog 2.2.5 */
?- aggregate_all(count, (between(1,1000000,N),
   float(N)**10 =\= float(N^10)), C).
   C = 12750.

/* Scryer Prolog 0.9.0 */
?- aggregate_all(count, (between(1,1000000,N),
    float(N)**10 =\= float(N^10)), C).
   C = 500254.

/* SWI-Prolog 8.5.17, doesn't have (^)/2, the (**)/2 behaves like it for integer arguments */
?- aggregate_all(count, (between(1,1000000,N),
     float(N)**10.0 =\= float(N**10)), C).
C = 585342.

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

#13241

FromMostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com>
Date2022-09-22 06:13 -0700
Message-ID<f095da54-9ac1-471e-abdc-19aaf1292c05n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#13240
Maybe one needs also look into float/1, not only (**)/2 ?
Especially float/1 of a bigint, I guess smallint could be ok.

I did more testing:

/* Jekejeke Prolog, JDK 19 */
C = 551.

/* Dogelog Player, Python (CPython and PyPy) */
C = 1991.

/* Dogelog Player, JavaScript (FireFox) */
C = 1991.

/* Jekejeke Prolog, JDK 1.8 */
C = 15586.

/* Dogelog Player, JavaScript (Chrome and NodeJS) */
C = 97722.

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Mittwoch, 21. September 2022 um 19:42:38 UTC+2:
> What does your Prolog float/1 and your Prolog (**)/2 do? 
> Does it do the right thing, or some nonsense? 
> 
> Here are some results: 
> 
> /* Jekejeke Prolog 1.5.4 */ 
> ?- aggregate_all(count, (between(1,1000000,N), 
> float(N)**10 =\= float(N^10)), C). 
> C = 551. 
> 
> /* Trealla Prolog 2.2.5 */ 
> ?- aggregate_all(count, (between(1,1000000,N), 
> float(N)**10 =\= float(N^10)), C). 
> C = 12750. 
> 
> /* Scryer Prolog 0.9.0 */ 
> ?- aggregate_all(count, (between(1,1000000,N), 
> float(N)**10 =\= float(N^10)), C). 
> C = 500254. 
> 
> /* SWI-Prolog 8.5.17, doesn't have (^)/2, the (**)/2 behaves like it for integer arguments */ 
> ?- aggregate_all(count, (between(1,1000000,N), 
> float(N)**10.0 =\= float(N**10)), C). 
> C = 585342.

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

#13242

FromMostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com>
Date2022-09-22 06:23 -0700
Message-ID<cd5a9dcc-f487-44a7-b2d5-2aa4c6c6e0b4n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#13241
The differences can be explained that the different host
languages have different runtime systems, with different
intrinsic Math.pow(double, double) implementations, that

is used for (**)/2 in Jekejeke Prolog and Dogelog Player, it
was all tested on the same hardware, so they possibly use
soft implementation of the pow intrinsic. Or maybe some

use hard implementation delegating to FPU, and I might
even see differences on different hardward. Will check with
a different hardware as welll. Give me some time. Since I

have Ryzen and Intel here, maybe will see a difference.

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Donnerstag, 22. September 2022 um 15:13:46 UTC+2:
> Maybe one needs also look into float/1, not only (**)/2 ? 
> Especially float/1 of a bigint, I guess smallint could be ok. 
> 
> I did more testing: 
> 
> /* Jekejeke Prolog, JDK 19 */ 
> C = 551. 
> 
> /* Dogelog Player, Python (CPython and PyPy) */ 
> C = 1991. 
> 
> /* Dogelog Player, JavaScript (FireFox) */ 
> C = 1991. 
> 
> /* Jekejeke Prolog, JDK 1.8 */ 
> C = 15586. 
> 
> /* Dogelog Player, JavaScript (Chrome and NodeJS) */ 
> C = 97722.
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Mittwoch, 21. September 2022 um 19:42:38 UTC+2: 
> > What does your Prolog float/1 and your Prolog (**)/2 do? 
> > Does it do the right thing, or some nonsense? 
> > 
> > Here are some results: 
> > 
> > /* Jekejeke Prolog 1.5.4 */ 
> > ?- aggregate_all(count, (between(1,1000000,N), 
> > float(N)**10 =\= float(N^10)), C). 
> > C = 551. 
> > 
> > /* Trealla Prolog 2.2.5 */ 
> > ?- aggregate_all(count, (between(1,1000000,N), 
> > float(N)**10 =\= float(N^10)), C). 
> > C = 12750. 
> > 
> > /* Scryer Prolog 0.9.0 */ 
> > ?- aggregate_all(count, (between(1,1000000,N), 
> > float(N)**10 =\= float(N^10)), C). 
> > C = 500254. 
> > 
> > /* SWI-Prolog 8.5.17, doesn't have (^)/2, the (**)/2 behaves like it for integer arguments */ 
> > ?- aggregate_all(count, (between(1,1000000,N), 
> > float(N)**10.0 =\= float(N**10)), C). 
> > C = 585342.

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

#13243

FromMostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com>
Date2022-09-22 06:41 -0700
Message-ID<67637021-df00-45a4-9c80-46a0e3d3a6a9n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#13242
Yes there is also a hardware dependency, and these figures
are no joke, i.e. that one figure is permutation of the other figure,
thats some random accident. I get the following result:

/* Jekejeke Prolog, JDK 1.8, Ryzen, 5 4500U */
C = 15586.

/* Jekejeke Prolog, JDK 1.8, Intel, i5-1135G7 */
C = 15856.

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Donnerstag, 22. September 2022 um 15:23:25 UTC+2:
> The differences can be explained that the different host 
> languages have different runtime systems, with different 
> intrinsic Math.pow(double, double) implementations, that 
> 
> is used for (**)/2 in Jekejeke Prolog and Dogelog Player, it 
> was all tested on the same hardware, so they possibly use 
> soft implementation of the pow intrinsic. Or maybe some 
> 
> use hard implementation delegating to FPU, and I might 
> even see differences on different hardward. Will check with 
> a different hardware as welll. Give me some time. Since I 
> 
> have Ryzen and Intel here, maybe will see a difference.
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Donnerstag, 22. September 2022 um 15:13:46 UTC+2: 
> > Maybe one needs also look into float/1, not only (**)/2 ? 
> > Especially float/1 of a bigint, I guess smallint could be ok. 
> > 
> > I did more testing: 
> > 
> > /* Jekejeke Prolog, JDK 19 */ 
> > C = 551. 
> > 
> > /* Dogelog Player, Python (CPython and PyPy) */ 
> > C = 1991. 
> > 
> > /* Dogelog Player, JavaScript (FireFox) */ 
> > C = 1991. 
> > 
> > /* Jekejeke Prolog, JDK 1.8 */ 
> > C = 15586. 
> > 
> > /* Dogelog Player, JavaScript (Chrome and NodeJS) */ 
> > C = 97722. 
> > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Mittwoch, 21. September 2022 um 19:42:38 UTC+2: 
> > > What does your Prolog float/1 and your Prolog (**)/2 do? 
> > > Does it do the right thing, or some nonsense? 
> > > 
> > > Here are some results: 
> > > 
> > > /* Jekejeke Prolog 1.5.4 */ 
> > > ?- aggregate_all(count, (between(1,1000000,N), 
> > > float(N)**10 =\= float(N^10)), C). 
> > > C = 551. 
> > > 
> > > /* Trealla Prolog 2.2.5 */ 
> > > ?- aggregate_all(count, (between(1,1000000,N), 
> > > float(N)**10 =\= float(N^10)), C). 
> > > C = 12750. 
> > > 
> > > /* Scryer Prolog 0.9.0 */ 
> > > ?- aggregate_all(count, (between(1,1000000,N), 
> > > float(N)**10 =\= float(N^10)), C). 
> > > C = 500254. 
> > > 
> > > /* SWI-Prolog 8.5.17, doesn't have (^)/2, the (**)/2 behaves like it for integer arguments */ 
> > > ?- aggregate_all(count, (between(1,1000000,N), 
> > > float(N)**10.0 =\= float(N**10)), C). 
> > > C = 585342.

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

#13244

FromMostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com>
Date2022-09-23 07:44 -0700
Message-ID<ca2d2ae7-b612-4a57-8e59-61694a180399n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#13243
Some progress was reported for SWI-Prolog:

/* Ubuntu AMD3950X, gcc-11 */
C = 807
/* Apple M1, AppleClang 13.1 */
C = 1225
/* Windows, MinGW 11.2 */
C = 508689

Maybe MinGW suffers from:

- Theory: You know something, but it doesn’t work.
- Practice: Something works, but you don’t know why.
- Programming: Combine theory and practice: Nothing works, and we don’t know why!

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Donnerstag, 22. September 2022 um 15:41:01 UTC+2:
> Yes there is also a hardware dependency, and these figures 
> are no joke, i.e. that one figure is permutation of the other figure, 
> thats some random accident. I get the following result: 
> 
> /* Jekejeke Prolog, JDK 1.8, Ryzen, 5 4500U */ 
> C = 15586. 
> 
> /* Jekejeke Prolog, JDK 1.8, Intel, i5-1135G7 */ 
> C = 15856.
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Donnerstag, 22. September 2022 um 15:23:25 UTC+2: 
> > The differences can be explained that the different host 
> > languages have different runtime systems, with different 
> > intrinsic Math.pow(double, double) implementations, that 
> > 
> > is used for (**)/2 in Jekejeke Prolog and Dogelog Player, it 
> > was all tested on the same hardware, so they possibly use 
> > soft implementation of the pow intrinsic. Or maybe some 
> > 
> > use hard implementation delegating to FPU, and I might 
> > even see differences on different hardward. Will check with 
> > a different hardware as welll. Give me some time. Since I 
> > 
> > have Ryzen and Intel here, maybe will see a difference. 
> > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Donnerstag, 22. September 2022 um 15:13:46 UTC+2: 
> > > Maybe one needs also look into float/1, not only (**)/2 ? 
> > > Especially float/1 of a bigint, I guess smallint could be ok. 
> > > 
> > > I did more testing: 
> > > 
> > > /* Jekejeke Prolog, JDK 19 */ 
> > > C = 551. 
> > > 
> > > /* Dogelog Player, Python (CPython and PyPy) */ 
> > > C = 1991. 
> > > 
> > > /* Dogelog Player, JavaScript (FireFox) */ 
> > > C = 1991. 
> > > 
> > > /* Jekejeke Prolog, JDK 1.8 */ 
> > > C = 15586. 
> > > 
> > > /* Dogelog Player, JavaScript (Chrome and NodeJS) */ 
> > > C = 97722. 
> > > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Mittwoch, 21. September 2022 um 19:42:38 UTC+2: 
> > > > What does your Prolog float/1 and your Prolog (**)/2 do? 
> > > > Does it do the right thing, or some nonsense? 
> > > > 
> > > > Here are some results: 
> > > > 
> > > > /* Jekejeke Prolog 1.5.4 */ 
> > > > ?- aggregate_all(count, (between(1,1000000,N), 
> > > > float(N)**10 =\= float(N^10)), C). 
> > > > C = 551. 
> > > > 
> > > > /* Trealla Prolog 2.2.5 */ 
> > > > ?- aggregate_all(count, (between(1,1000000,N), 
> > > > float(N)**10 =\= float(N^10)), C). 
> > > > C = 12750. 
> > > > 
> > > > /* Scryer Prolog 0.9.0 */ 
> > > > ?- aggregate_all(count, (between(1,1000000,N), 
> > > > float(N)**10 =\= float(N^10)), C). 
> > > > C = 500254. 
> > > > 
> > > > /* SWI-Prolog 8.5.17, doesn't have (^)/2, the (**)/2 behaves like it for integer arguments */ 
> > > > ?- aggregate_all(count, (between(1,1000000,N), 
> > > > float(N)**10.0 =\= float(N**10)), C). 
> > > > C = 585342.

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

#13245

FromMostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com>
Date2022-09-25 07:10 -0700
Message-ID<784b7fec-6357-4667-82a8-69e682b613c6n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#13244
Will a change to float/1 also affect (/)/2. In the past I had high
regard of ECLiPSe Prolog (/)/2. Actually now I have the feeling 
ECLiPSe Prolog has degraded. But there is now the issue, suppose 

there is a new SWI-Prolog version with a new float/1 compatible
with (**)/2, do the results still hold?

?- aggregate_all(count, (between(1,1000000,N), 
(123456789*123456789*N)/123456789 =\= float(123456789*N)), C).

/* SWI-Prolog 8.5.17 */
C = 0

/* Jekejeke Prolog 1.5.4, both JDK 1.8 and JDK 19 */
C = 72226

/* ECLiPSe Prolog 7.0.61 */
C = 494175

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

#13246

FromMostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com>
Date2022-09-25 07:11 -0700
Message-ID<a9f6c759-bc62-42d6-8f89-8904201f653cn@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#13245
And of course there is the question of timing. SWI-Prolog, the 
version 8.5.17 I have available, is rather behind, possibly rather
an issue of (/)/2, but could be an issue of both (/)/2

and float/1 in the future:

?- time((between(1,1000000,N), (123456789*123456789*N)/123456789
=\= float(123456789*N), fail; true)).

/* SWI-Prolog 8.5.17 */
% 2,000,002 inferences, 1.297 CPU in 1.285 seconds (101% CPU, 1542170 Lips)

/* Jekejeke Prolog 1.5.4, JDK 19 */
% Threads 328 ms, GC 3 ms, Up 333 ms (Current 09/25/22 16:01:26)

/* Jekejeke Prolog 1.5.4, JDK 1.8 */
% Threads 250 ms, GC 3 ms, Up 261 ms (Current 09/25/22 16:05:51)

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Sonntag, 25. September 2022 um 16:10:14 UTC+2:
> Will a change to float/1 also affect (/)/2. In the past I had high 
> regard of ECLiPSe Prolog (/)/2. Actually now I have the feeling 
> ECLiPSe Prolog has degraded. But there is now the issue, suppose 
> 
> there is a new SWI-Prolog version with a new float/1 compatible 
> with (**)/2, do the results still hold? 
> 
> ?- aggregate_all(count, (between(1,1000000,N), 
> (123456789*123456789*N)/123456789 =\= float(123456789*N)), C). 
> 
> /* SWI-Prolog 8.5.17 */ 
> C = 0 
> 
> /* Jekejeke Prolog 1.5.4, both JDK 1.8 and JDK 19 */ 
> C = 72226 
> 
> /* ECLiPSe Prolog 7.0.61 */ 
> C = 494175

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

#13247

FromMostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com>
Date2022-09-25 08:55 -0700
Message-ID<e1972fc0-52b5-4d82-a89d-a8c8157f873bn@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#13246
Its also lacking behind on Unix, via WSL2 on the same machine,
but this is not yet a version with some new float/1:

/* SWI-Prolog 8.4.2 */
% 2,000,001 inferences, 0.543 CPU in 0.543 seconds (100% CPU, 3685380 Lips)
JDK 1.8 does it in 261 ms. But I use a different (/)/2 algorithm.
Actually one could also introduce two float division algorithms, similar
to two power raise functions (**)/2 and (^)/2:

- Fast but less precise (/)/2: Calling X is A/B will use a less precise algorithm,
like for example float(A)/float(B). The benefit would be more speedier,
disadvantage less precision. The error is not that bad, see above in the
example I get only 72226 faults. Same idea could be applied to (**)/2.

- Slow but more precise (rdiv)/2 and float/1 combo: Call X is float(A rdiv B) will
use a more precise algorithm, for example divmod/4 and extra shifting
based as in mpq_get_d_nearest . The benefit would be more precise,
disadvantage less speed. Same idea could be appled to (^)/2.

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Sonntag, 25. September 2022 um 16:11:35 UTC+2:
> And of course there is the question of timing. SWI-Prolog, the 
> version 8.5.17 I have available, is rather behind, possibly rather 
> an issue of (/)/2, but could be an issue of both (/)/2 
> 
> and float/1 in the future: 
> 
> ?- time((between(1,1000000,N), (123456789*123456789*N)/123456789 
> =\= float(123456789*N), fail; true)). 
> 
> /* SWI-Prolog 8.5.17 */ 
> % 2,000,002 inferences, 1.297 CPU in 1.285 seconds (101% CPU, 1542170 Lips) 
> 
> /* Jekejeke Prolog 1.5.4, JDK 19 */ 
> % Threads 328 ms, GC 3 ms, Up 333 ms (Current 09/25/22 16:01:26) 
> 
> /* Jekejeke Prolog 1.5.4, JDK 1.8 */ 
> % Threads 250 ms, GC 3 ms, Up 261 ms (Current 09/25/22 16:05:51)
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Sonntag, 25. September 2022 um 16:10:14 UTC+2: 
> > Will a change to float/1 also affect (/)/2. In the past I had high 
> > regard of ECLiPSe Prolog (/)/2. Actually now I have the feeling 
> > ECLiPSe Prolog has degraded. But there is now the issue, suppose 
> > 
> > there is a new SWI-Prolog version with a new float/1 compatible 
> > with (**)/2, do the results still hold? 
> > 
> > ?- aggregate_all(count, (between(1,1000000,N), 
> > (123456789*123456789*N)/123456789 =\= float(123456789*N)), C). 
> > 
> > /* SWI-Prolog 8.5.17 */ 
> > C = 0 
> > 
> > /* Jekejeke Prolog 1.5.4, both JDK 1.8 and JDK 19 */ 
> > C = 72226 
> > 
> > /* ECLiPSe Prolog 7.0.61 */ 
> > C = 494175

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

#13248

FromMostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com>
Date2022-09-25 08:56 -0700
Message-ID<258ecaf5-0e5c-4675-9e19-626d0bb33743n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#13247
I also tested Trealla Prolog and Scryer Prolog, here precision:

/* Trealla Prolog 2.2.6 */
C = 72226

/* Scryer Prolog 0.9.0 */
C = 494423

Here the time measurements, Trealla Prolog nearly as fast as JDK 1.8:

/* Trealla Prolog 2.2.6 */
% Time elapsed 0.293s

/* Scryer Prolog 0.9.0 */
%   % CPU time: 1.559s

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Sonntag, 25. September 2022 um 17:55:23 UTC+2:
> Its also lacking behind on Unix, via WSL2 on the same machine, 
> but this is not yet a version with some new float/1: 
> 
> /* SWI-Prolog 8.4.2 */ 
> % 2,000,001 inferences, 0.543 CPU in 0.543 seconds (100% CPU, 3685380 Lips) 
> JDK 1.8 does it in 261 ms. But I use a different (/)/2 algorithm. 
> Actually one could also introduce two float division algorithms, similar 
> to two power raise functions (**)/2 and (^)/2: 
> 
> - Fast but less precise (/)/2: Calling X is A/B will use a less precise algorithm, 
> like for example float(A)/float(B). The benefit would be more speedier, 
> disadvantage less precision. The error is not that bad, see above in the 
> example I get only 72226 faults. Same idea could be applied to (**)/2. 
> 
> - Slow but more precise (rdiv)/2 and float/1 combo: Call X is float(A rdiv B) will 
> use a more precise algorithm, for example divmod/4 and extra shifting 
> based as in mpq_get_d_nearest . The benefit would be more precise, 
> disadvantage less speed. Same idea could be appled to (^)/2.
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Sonntag, 25. September 2022 um 16:11:35 UTC+2: 
> > And of course there is the question of timing. SWI-Prolog, the 
> > version 8.5.17 I have available, is rather behind, possibly rather 
> > an issue of (/)/2, but could be an issue of both (/)/2 
> > 
> > and float/1 in the future: 
> > 
> > ?- time((between(1,1000000,N), (123456789*123456789*N)/123456789 
> > =\= float(123456789*N), fail; true)). 
> > 
> > /* SWI-Prolog 8.5.17 */ 
> > % 2,000,002 inferences, 1.297 CPU in 1.285 seconds (101% CPU, 1542170 Lips) 
> > 
> > /* Jekejeke Prolog 1.5.4, JDK 19 */ 
> > % Threads 328 ms, GC 3 ms, Up 333 ms (Current 09/25/22 16:01:26) 
> > 
> > /* Jekejeke Prolog 1.5.4, JDK 1.8 */ 
> > % Threads 250 ms, GC 3 ms, Up 261 ms (Current 09/25/22 16:05:51) 
> > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Sonntag, 25. September 2022 um 16:10:14 UTC+2: 
> > > Will a change to float/1 also affect (/)/2. In the past I had high 
> > > regard of ECLiPSe Prolog (/)/2. Actually now I have the feeling 
> > > ECLiPSe Prolog has degraded. But there is now the issue, suppose 
> > > 
> > > there is a new SWI-Prolog version with a new float/1 compatible 
> > > with (**)/2, do the results still hold? 
> > > 
> > > ?- aggregate_all(count, (between(1,1000000,N), 
> > > (123456789*123456789*N)/123456789 =\= float(123456789*N)), C). 
> > > 
> > > /* SWI-Prolog 8.5.17 */ 
> > > C = 0 
> > > 
> > > /* Jekejeke Prolog 1.5.4, both JDK 1.8 and JDK 19 */ 
> > > C = 72226 
> > > 
> > > /* ECLiPSe Prolog 7.0.61 */ 
> > > C = 494175

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

#13714

FromMarkus Triska <triska@logic.at>
Date2023-08-31 21:32 +0200
Message-ID<m2msy7gg8d.fsf@logic.at>
In reply to#13081
Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> writes:

> For Scryer Prolog the struggle is minutely documented:
>
> Compiling and running scryer as a WebAssembly binary?
> https://github.com/mthom/scryer-prolog/issues/615

Good news everyone: It's now possible to compile Scryer Prolog to WASM,
the build instructions are here:

    https://github.com/mthom/scryer-prolog/pull/1966#issuecomment-1697974614

Enjoy!

All the best,
Markus

-- 
comp.lang.prolog FAQ: http://www.logic.at/prolog/faq/
The Power of Prolog:  https://www.metalevel.at/prolog

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

#13716

FromMild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com>
Date2023-09-01 12:02 -0700
Message-ID<7199a778-7b65-4d5a-8cac-908ab6d415adn@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#13714
What can you demonstrate with your Scryer WASM?

Ok, I just see, I have nevertheless published my new Chinese
Remainder Theorem CLP(FD) solver, it even runs in a web page. 
As a Dogelog Player program its a little slower than the 0.5 secs 

in formerly Jekejeke Prolog,  but its still faster than the ordinary 
CLP(FD) in SWI-Prolog, which takes around 5 seconds. The web 
page with the new CLP(FD) takes around 3 seconds, 

you can try it here in JS FIiddle, it should also use Dogelog Player 1.1.1:

Example 71: Diophantine Modular
X = 216, Y = 52, Z = 217; 
X = 52, Y = 216, Z = 217; 
fail. 
% Zeit 3574 ms, GC 7 ms, Lips 1696084, Uhr 01.09.2023 20:56 true.
https://jsfiddle.net/Jean_Luc_Picard_2021/d2njehtp/3/

Woa! It still runs unchanged, the code from 12 Months ago.

Markus Triska schrieb am Donnerstag, 31. August 2023 um 21:25:51 UTC+2:
> Mostowski Collapse <burs...@gmail.com> writes: 
> 
> > For Scryer Prolog the struggle is minutely documented: 
> > 
> > Compiling and running scryer as a WebAssembly binary? 
> > https://github.com/mthom/scryer-prolog/issues/615 
> 
> Good news everyone: It's now possible to compile Scryer Prolog to WASM, 
> the build instructions are here: 
> 
> https://github.com/mthom/scryer-prolog/pull/1966#issuecomment-1697974614 
> 
> Enjoy! 
> 
> All the best, 
> Markus 
> 
> -- 
> comp.lang.prolog FAQ: http://www.logic.at/prolog/faq/ 
> The Power of Prolog: https://www.metalevel.at/prolog

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

#14029

FromMild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm>
Date2024-04-09 00:15 +0200
Message-ID<uv1q99$b8o5$1@solani.org>
In reply to#13716
Remembering Joe Armstrong - 20. April 2024:
https://www.heise.de/news/Hello-Mike-hello-Robert-goodbye-Joe-Zum-Tode-von-Joe-Armstrong-4404170.html

Some quote:

"Make it work, then make it beautiful, then
if you really, really have to, make it fast.

90% of the time, if you make it beautiful,
it will already be fast.

So really, just make it beautiful!
-Joe Armstrong, Erlang"


Now I have a couple of questions:
- Was Jekejeke beautiful? [No! LoL]
- Is Trealla beautiful?
- Is Scryer beautiful?
- Is Dogelog beautiful? [Yes! LoL]
- Is SWI-Prolog beautiful?
- Is GNU Prolog beautiful?
- Is ECLiPSe Prolog beautiful?
- Is XSB Prolog beautiful?
- Is SICStus Prolog beautiful?
- Etc..

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

#14030

FromMild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm>
Date2024-04-09 00:20 +0200
Message-ID<uv1qj9$b90p$1@solani.org>
In reply to#14029
Hey Scryer Prolog, whats up?
Why the tooltip "Artificial Intelligence" over "AI"

Scryer Prolog Meetup 2024
https://www.digitalaustria.gv.at/eng/insights/Digital-Austria-Events-EN/Scryer-Prolog-Meetup-2024.html

What does AI mean in Austria, Austrian Idiotism?
Why don't you simply write:

Artificial Inteligence (AI) in the first occurence,
then in every other occurence you can write AI.
And then the thingy gets also printable.

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Remembering Joe Armstrong - 20. April 2024:
> https://www.heise.de/news/Hello-Mike-hello-Robert-goodbye-Joe-Zum-Tode-von-Joe-Armstrong-4404170.html 
> 
> 
> Some quote:
> 
> "Make it work, then make it beautiful, then
> if you really, really have to, make it fast.
> 
> 90% of the time, if you make it beautiful,
> it will already be fast.
> 
> So really, just make it beautiful!
> -Joe Armstrong, Erlang"
> 
> 
> Now I have a couple of questions:
> - Was Jekejeke beautiful? [No! LoL]
> - Is Trealla beautiful?
> - Is Scryer beautiful?
> - Is Dogelog beautiful? [Yes! LoL]
> - Is SWI-Prolog beautiful?
> - Is GNU Prolog beautiful?
> - Is ECLiPSe Prolog beautiful?
> - Is XSB Prolog beautiful?
> - Is SICStus Prolog beautiful?
> - Etc..
> 
> 
>

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

#13633

FromMostowski Collapse <janburse@fastmail.fm>
Date2023-05-20 14:09 +0200
Message-ID<u4ad9j$8n92$1@solani.org>
In reply to#13019
Panic on the Titanic? This paper here
references s(CASP) and LLM:

Prolog: Past, Present, and Future
https://personal.utdallas.edu/~gupta/prolog-next-50-years.pdf

But when I lookup the reference, its
just some to appear thingy:

A. Rajasekharan, Y. Zeng, P. Padalkar, and G. Gupta.
Reliable Natural Language Understanding with Large
Language Models and Answer Set Programming. Preprint
arXiv:2302.03780; to appear in Proc. ICLP’23 (Tech. Comm.) 2023.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.03780

LoL

Well its never too late to jump on a
Bandwagon, even if some bones might crash.

Bye

Mostowski Collapse schrieb:
> What would make sense, is a ISO core standard working
> group, that would draft these stream creation properties:
> 
> - bom(Bool)
>      Specify detecting or writing a BOM.
>   - encoding(Atom)
>      Specify a file encoding.
> 
> After all we have already 2022 and 50 years of Prolog. But
> can we be sure that Prolog texts are exchangeable, if
> they use Unicode code points?
> 
> What if a UTF-16 file, handy for CJK, comes along?
> 
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 10. Juni 2022 um 14:54:07 UTC+2:
>> Its 2022 and Prolog is among the top 20
>>
>> TIOBE Index for June 2022
>> https://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index/
>>
>> Woa!

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

#13634

FromMostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com>
Date2023-05-20 05:46 -0700
Message-ID<8e62ca61-05cc-4097-a80e-b56e1b31e71bn@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#13633
Knock, Knock, any idea whats going on via OpenAI?
Will computers communicate with each other via
Prolog Goals, Telescript Agents, SPARQL Queries?

What about "natural language" with tons of context 
as the interfacing currency between Computers and 
Humans, and between Computers and Computers?

Interesting paper here, with modes LM size goals:

"[...]
Although the second path is simpler and apparently
capable of earlier realization, it has been relatively neglected. 
Fredkin's trie memory provides a promising paradigm. 
We may in due course see a serious effort to develop 
computer programs that can be connected together
like the words and phrases of speech to do whatever
computation or control is required at the moment. The
consideration that holds back such an effort, apparently,
is that the effort would produce nothing that, would be of
great value in the context of existing computers. It would
be unrewarding to develop the language before there are
any computing machines capable of responding meaningfully to it.
[...]
For real-time interaction on a truly symbiotic level, however, 
a vocabulary of about 2000 words, e.g. 1000 words of 
something like basic English and 1000 technical terms, 
would probably be required. That constitutes a challenging 
problem. In the consensus of acousticians and linguists, 
construction of a recognizer of 2000 words cannot be 
accomplished now. However, there are several organizations 
that would happily undertake to develop and automatie recognizer 
for such a vocabulary on a five-year basis.
[...]"

LICKLIDER, J. C. R. 1960. Man-computer symbiosis. 
IRE Transactions on Human Factors in Electronics. HFE-1: 4-11, (March 1).
http://worrydream.com/refs/Licklider%20-%20Man-Computer%20Symbiosis.pdf

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Samstag, 20. Mai 2023 um 14:09:26 UTC+2:
> Panic on the Titanic? This paper here 
> references s(CASP) and LLM: 
> 
> Prolog: Past, Present, and Future 
> https://personal.utdallas.edu/~gupta/prolog-next-50-years.pdf 
> 
> But when I lookup the reference, its 
> just some to appear thingy: 
> 
> A. Rajasekharan, Y. Zeng, P. Padalkar, and G. Gupta. 
> Reliable Natural Language Understanding with Large 
> Language Models and Answer Set Programming. Preprint 
> arXiv:2302.03780; to appear in Proc. ICLP’23 (Tech. Comm.) 2023. 
> https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.03780 
> 
> LoL 
> 
> Well its never too late to jump on a 
> Bandwagon, even if some bones might crash. 
> 
> Bye 
> 
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb: 
> > What would make sense, is a ISO core standard working 
> > group, that would draft these stream creation properties: 
> > 
> > - bom(Bool) 
> > Specify detecting or writing a BOM. 
> > - encoding(Atom) 
> > Specify a file encoding. 
> > 
> > After all we have already 2022 and 50 years of Prolog. But 
> > can we be sure that Prolog texts are exchangeable, if 
> > they use Unicode code points? 
> > 
> > What if a UTF-16 file, handy for CJK, comes along? 
> > 
> > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 10. Juni 2022 um 14:54:07 UTC+2: 
> >> Its 2022 and Prolog is among the top 20 
> >> 
> >> TIOBE Index for June 2022 
> >> https://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index/ 
> >> 
> >> Woa!

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

#13635

FromMostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com>
Date2023-05-20 05:48 -0700
Message-ID<4842b7ab-789d-4c89-a36c-df8a16c7cb05n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#13634
Corr.: Typo

Interesting paper here, with modest LM size goals: 

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Samstag, 20. Mai 2023 um 14:46:32 UTC+2:
> Knock, Knock, any idea whats going on via OpenAI? 
> Will computers communicate with each other via 
> Prolog Goals, Telescript Agents, SPARQL Queries? 
> 
> What about "natural language" with tons of context 
> as the interfacing currency between Computers and 
> Humans, and between Computers and Computers? 
> 
> Interesting paper here, with modes LM size goals: 
> 
> "[...] 
> Although the second path is simpler and apparently 
> capable of earlier realization, it has been relatively neglected. 
> Fredkin's trie memory provides a promising paradigm. 
> We may in due course see a serious effort to develop 
> computer programs that can be connected together 
> like the words and phrases of speech to do whatever 
> computation or control is required at the moment. The 
> consideration that holds back such an effort, apparently, 
> is that the effort would produce nothing that, would be of 
> great value in the context of existing computers. It would 
> be unrewarding to develop the language before there are 
> any computing machines capable of responding meaningfully to it. 
> [...] 
> For real-time interaction on a truly symbiotic level, however, 
> a vocabulary of about 2000 words, e.g. 1000 words of 
> something like basic English and 1000 technical terms, 
> would probably be required. That constitutes a challenging 
> problem. In the consensus of acousticians and linguists, 
> construction of a recognizer of 2000 words cannot be 
> accomplished now. However, there are several organizations 
> that would happily undertake to develop and automatie recognizer 
> for such a vocabulary on a five-year basis. 
> [...]" 
> 
> LICKLIDER, J. C. R. 1960. Man-computer symbiosis. 
> IRE Transactions on Human Factors in Electronics. HFE-1: 4-11, (March 1). 
> http://worrydream.com/refs/Licklider%20-%20Man-Computer%20Symbiosis.pdf
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Samstag, 20. Mai 2023 um 14:09:26 UTC+2: 
> > Panic on the Titanic? This paper here 
> > references s(CASP) and LLM: 
> > 
> > Prolog: Past, Present, and Future 
> > https://personal.utdallas.edu/~gupta/prolog-next-50-years.pdf 
> > 
> > But when I lookup the reference, its 
> > just some to appear thingy: 
> > 
> > A. Rajasekharan, Y. Zeng, P. Padalkar, and G. Gupta. 
> > Reliable Natural Language Understanding with Large 
> > Language Models and Answer Set Programming. Preprint 
> > arXiv:2302.03780; to appear in Proc. ICLP’23 (Tech. Comm.) 2023. 
> > https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.03780 
> > 
> > LoL 
> > 
> > Well its never too late to jump on a 
> > Bandwagon, even if some bones might crash. 
> > 
> > Bye 
> > 
> > Mostowski Collapse schrieb: 
> > > What would make sense, is a ISO core standard working 
> > > group, that would draft these stream creation properties: 
> > > 
> > > - bom(Bool) 
> > > Specify detecting or writing a BOM. 
> > > - encoding(Atom) 
> > > Specify a file encoding. 
> > > 
> > > After all we have already 2022 and 50 years of Prolog. But 
> > > can we be sure that Prolog texts are exchangeable, if 
> > > they use Unicode code points? 
> > > 
> > > What if a UTF-16 file, handy for CJK, comes along? 
> > > 
> > > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 10. Juni 2022 um 14:54:07 UTC+2: 
> > >> Its 2022 and Prolog is among the top 20 
> > >> 
> > >> TIOBE Index for June 2022 
> > >> https://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index/ 
> > >> 
> > >> Woa!

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

#13636

FromMostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com>
Date2023-05-20 06:16 -0700
Message-ID<46640569-53b0-4790-b9cc-4accd5357fe8n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#13635
ChatGPT uses something like a 50'000 or much larger
vocabulary, for more recent models. And has also mechanisms
to handle out-of-vocabulary (OOV) words.

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Samstag, 20. Mai 2023 um 14:48:54 UTC+2:
> Corr.: Typo 
> 
> Interesting paper here, with modest LM size goals:
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Samstag, 20. Mai 2023 um 14:46:32 UTC+2: 
> > Knock, Knock, any idea whats going on via OpenAI? 
> > Will computers communicate with each other via 
> > Prolog Goals, Telescript Agents, SPARQL Queries? 
> > 
> > What about "natural language" with tons of context 
> > as the interfacing currency between Computers and 
> > Humans, and between Computers and Computers? 
> > 
> > Interesting paper here, with modes LM size goals: 
> > 
> > "[...] 
> > Although the second path is simpler and apparently 
> > capable of earlier realization, it has been relatively neglected. 
> > Fredkin's trie memory provides a promising paradigm. 
> > We may in due course see a serious effort to develop 
> > computer programs that can be connected together 
> > like the words and phrases of speech to do whatever 
> > computation or control is required at the moment. The 
> > consideration that holds back such an effort, apparently, 
> > is that the effort would produce nothing that, would be of 
> > great value in the context of existing computers. It would 
> > be unrewarding to develop the language before there are 
> > any computing machines capable of responding meaningfully to it. 
> > [...] 
> > For real-time interaction on a truly symbiotic level, however, 
> > a vocabulary of about 2000 words, e.g. 1000 words of 
> > something like basic English and 1000 technical terms, 
> > would probably be required. That constitutes a challenging 
> > problem. In the consensus of acousticians and linguists, 
> > construction of a recognizer of 2000 words cannot be 
> > accomplished now. However, there are several organizations 
> > that would happily undertake to develop and automatie recognizer 
> > for such a vocabulary on a five-year basis. 
> > [...]" 
> > 
> > LICKLIDER, J. C. R. 1960. Man-computer symbiosis. 
> > IRE Transactions on Human Factors in Electronics. HFE-1: 4-11, (March 1). 
> > http://worrydream.com/refs/Licklider%20-%20Man-Computer%20Symbiosis.pdf 
> > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Samstag, 20. Mai 2023 um 14:09:26 UTC+2: 
> > > Panic on the Titanic? This paper here 
> > > references s(CASP) and LLM: 
> > > 
> > > Prolog: Past, Present, and Future 
> > > https://personal.utdallas.edu/~gupta/prolog-next-50-years.pdf 
> > > 
> > > But when I lookup the reference, its 
> > > just some to appear thingy: 
> > > 
> > > A. Rajasekharan, Y. Zeng, P. Padalkar, and G. Gupta. 
> > > Reliable Natural Language Understanding with Large 
> > > Language Models and Answer Set Programming. Preprint 
> > > arXiv:2302.03780; to appear in Proc. ICLP’23 (Tech. Comm.) 2023. 
> > > https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.03780 
> > > 
> > > LoL 
> > > 
> > > Well its never too late to jump on a 
> > > Bandwagon, even if some bones might crash. 
> > > 
> > > Bye 
> > > 
> > > Mostowski Collapse schrieb: 
> > > > What would make sense, is a ISO core standard working 
> > > > group, that would draft these stream creation properties: 
> > > > 
> > > > - bom(Bool) 
> > > > Specify detecting or writing a BOM. 
> > > > - encoding(Atom) 
> > > > Specify a file encoding. 
> > > > 
> > > > After all we have already 2022 and 50 years of Prolog. But 
> > > > can we be sure that Prolog texts are exchangeable, if 
> > > > they use Unicode code points? 
> > > > 
> > > > What if a UTF-16 file, handy for CJK, comes along? 
> > > > 
> > > > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 10. Juni 2022 um 14:54:07 UTC+2: 
> > > >> Its 2022 and Prolog is among the top 20 
> > > >> 
> > > >> TIOBE Index for June 2022 
> > > >> https://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index/ 
> > > >> 
> > > >> Woa!

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

#13649

FromMild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com>
Date2023-05-27 04:51 -0700
Message-ID<cd5211bc-e0c4-4abe-8deb-ad02f0b7feb0n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#13634
More Knock, Knock. I guess the future of the internet
is indeed a collection of books that talk to each other! 
Who had this vision again, I don't remember.

Ok, let some AI intelligence, like ChatGPT, do the 
low level plumbing. Interesting paper BTW:

"Supporting a web scale collection of potentially millions
of changing APIs requires rethinking our approach to how
we integrate tools. It is not longer possible to describe
the full set of APIs in a single context. 

Many of the APIs will have overlapping functionality with
nuanced limitations and constraints. Simply evaluating
LLMs in this new setting requires new benchmarks.

In this paper, we explore the use of self-instruct fine-tuning
and retrieval to enable LLMs to accurately select from
a large, overlapping, and changing set tools expressed
using their APIs and API documentation. 

We construct, APIBench, a large corpus of APIs with
complex and often overlapping functionality by scraping
ML APIs (models) from public model hubs."

Gorilla: Large Language Model Connected with Massive APIs
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2305.15334.pdf

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Samstag, 20. Mai 2023 um 14:46:32 UTC+2:
> Knock, Knock, any idea whats going on via OpenAI? 
> Will computers communicate with each other via 
> Prolog Goals, Telescript Agents, SPARQL Queries? 
> 
> What about "natural language" with tons of context 
> as the interfacing currency between Computers and 
> Humans, and between Computers and Computers? 
> 
> Interesting paper here, with modes LM size goals: 
> 
> "[...] 
> Although the second path is simpler and apparently 
> capable of earlier realization, it has been relatively neglected. 
> Fredkin's trie memory provides a promising paradigm. 
> We may in due course see a serious effort to develop 
> computer programs that can be connected together 
> like the words and phrases of speech to do whatever 
> computation or control is required at the moment. The 
> consideration that holds back such an effort, apparently, 
> is that the effort would produce nothing that, would be of 
> great value in the context of existing computers. It would 
> be unrewarding to develop the language before there are 
> any computing machines capable of responding meaningfully to it. 
> [...] 
> For real-time interaction on a truly symbiotic level, however, 
> a vocabulary of about 2000 words, e.g. 1000 words of 
> something like basic English and 1000 technical terms, 
> would probably be required. That constitutes a challenging 
> problem. In the consensus of acousticians and linguists, 
> construction of a recognizer of 2000 words cannot be 
> accomplished now. However, there are several organizations 
> that would happily undertake to develop and automatie recognizer 
> for such a vocabulary on a five-year basis. 
> [...]" 
> 
> LICKLIDER, J. C. R. 1960. Man-computer symbiosis. 
> IRE Transactions on Human Factors in Electronics. HFE-1: 4-11, (March 1). 
> http://worrydream.com/refs/Licklider%20-%20Man-Computer%20Symbiosis.pdf
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Samstag, 20. Mai 2023 um 14:09:26 UTC+2: 
> > Panic on the Titanic? This paper here 
> > references s(CASP) and LLM: 
> > 
> > Prolog: Past, Present, and Future 
> > https://personal.utdallas.edu/~gupta/prolog-next-50-years.pdf 
> > 
> > But when I lookup the reference, its 
> > just some to appear thingy: 
> > 
> > A. Rajasekharan, Y. Zeng, P. Padalkar, and G. Gupta. 
> > Reliable Natural Language Understanding with Large 
> > Language Models and Answer Set Programming. Preprint 
> > arXiv:2302.03780; to appear in Proc. ICLP’23 (Tech. Comm.) 2023. 
> > https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.03780 
> > 
> > LoL 
> > 
> > Well its never too late to jump on a 
> > Bandwagon, even if some bones might crash. 
> > 
> > Bye 
> > 
> > Mostowski Collapse schrieb: 
> > > What would make sense, is a ISO core standard working 
> > > group, that would draft these stream creation properties: 
> > > 
> > > - bom(Bool) 
> > > Specify detecting or writing a BOM. 
> > > - encoding(Atom) 
> > > Specify a file encoding. 
> > > 
> > > After all we have already 2022 and 50 years of Prolog. But 
> > > can we be sure that Prolog texts are exchangeable, if 
> > > they use Unicode code points? 
> > > 
> > > What if a UTF-16 file, handy for CJK, comes along? 
> > > 
> > > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 10. Juni 2022 um 14:54:07 UTC+2: 
> > >> Its 2022 and Prolog is among the top 20 
> > >> 
> > >> TIOBE Index for June 2022 
> > >> https://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index/ 
> > >> 
> > >> Woa!

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

#13653

FromMild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com>
Date2023-06-01 14:10 -0700
Message-ID<38ae3798-672c-4da3-a2fe-45e294ecf565n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#13649
June, 2023 Update: It might be the case, that ChatGPT has improved
in logic. Here it does even modal logic, and you can ask it to produce
proofs without LEM. ChatGPT does the following tasks:

Here’s how you can translate the proof into natural deduction:
Here’s an alternative proof that does not rely on LEM:
Here’s the translation of the proof into Fitch-style natural deduction:
Here’s the translation of the proof into Gentzen’s tree-style natural deduction:
Here’s the translation of the proof into sequent-style natural deduction:
https://chat.openai.com/share/79ae4f02-fd07-4786-800b-305bc9eed143

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

Page 6 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 10  Next page →

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

csiph-web