Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.prolog > #12554 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-01-28 07:41 -0800 |
| Last post | 2025-08-01 03:01 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 200 — 6 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.prolog
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 3 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 10 Next page →
| From | Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-05 01:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cfb88999-a945-4461-bd21-81b5e0f5207en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #12944 |
Maybe the phrase/3 translation grows out of the
desire to a) make the translation not cut transparent,
b) make the translation similar to the translation
of ordinary (\+)/1 which does lazy body conversion
for the meta variables in its argument. b) is some luxury
and a) is guaranteed because (\+)/1 enters the
translation result. Just check out:
p --> \+ (q, !, r).
It gets translated as, in SWI-Prolog:
?- listing(p/2).
p(A, B) :-
\+ ( q(A, C),
!,
D=C,
r(D, _)
),
B=A.
The result is also not cut transparent, since the cut ! is inside
(\+)/1. So cut transparency is not an issue. About b), you
could device a more intelligent DCG translation, which
can do this. i.e. when it sees no meta variables, do directly
a translation. Otherwise do a translation that amounts to
something lazy. Such optimizations are also available for
(\+)/1 outside of the DCG context. You can pre-compile the
body conversion, if you see that it is stable. This can give
quite some speed up to ordinary Prolog, i.e. case you
have complex (\+)/1 arguments.
Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Donnerstag, 5. Mai 2022 um 09:58:35 UTC+2:
> The SWI-Prolog behaviour is the steadfast one.
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Donnerstag, 5. Mai 2022 um 09:52:29 UTC+2:
> > At least UWNs translation would be steadfast. Here you
> > see what is the difference between a steadfast, and
> > a non-steadfast translation:
> >
> > Was running this test case:
> >
> > p --> \+ q.
> > q --> {write('did you call me?'), nl}.
> >
> > In Tau Prolog 0.3.2 (beta) I get:
> >
> > p([a],[]).
> > false.
> >
> > On the other hand SWI-Prolog gives me:
> >
> > ?- p([a],[]).
> > did you call me?
> > false.
> > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Donnerstag, 5. Mai 2022 um 09:21:49 UTC+2:
> > > So I heard it through the grape wine, Scryer Prolog
> > > does not have DCG (\+)/1. Dang! So far ECLiPSe Prolog,
> > > SWI-Prolog, GNU Prolog, SICStus Prolog have it.
> > >
> > > Why is this so? UWNs code doesn't make any sense:
> > >
> > > dcg_cbody(\+ GRBody, S0, S, ( \+ phrase(GRBody1,S0,_), S0 = S ), M) :-
> > > module_call_qualified(M, GRBody, GRBody1).
> > >
> > > He does not compile (\+)/1, makes it a call to phrase/3.
> > > You can check other Prolog systems, usually they call body
> > > translation when they translate (\+)/1.
> > >
> > > So people comment it out?
> > >
> > > %% dcg_constr(\+ _). % 7.14.11 - not (existence implementation dep.)
> > >
> > > LoL
> > > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Mittwoch, 4. Mai 2022 um 20:35:57 UTC+2:
> > > > Woa! A moment of silence for Scryer Prolog.
> > > > It has become irreversibly unuseable, even
> > > > basic Prolog logic doesn't work anymore...
> > > >
> > > > What the heck are they doing? Tons of unification
> > > > and char list tickets on GitHub. But elementary
> > > > things like switch_on_term / switch_on_constant
> > > >
> > > > / put_unsafe_value are troubled by random numbers?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-05 03:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1f943192-f670-422a-834e-ec9369783527n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #12945 |
When it is 2022, but you are still living in 2013: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/12758567/legitimate-uses-of-1 The question has two former answers from me. Stackoverflow didn't allow me to delete them. Nobody else has answered, and you are asking the wrong question. I find that ECLiPSe Prolog, SWI-Prolog, GNU Prolog and SICStus Prolog support it. They all are able to support (\+)/1 inside DCG. You can also add Tau-Prolog to the list and a couple of more Prolog systems. The (\+)/1 is nowadays part of PEG. parsing expression grammar (PEG) Not-predicate: !e https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsing_expression_grammar It has million of uses, they are all legitimate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-05 03:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4f6657ca-e14f-4528-aa1b-5c11683d5166n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #12946 |
Its also nicely explained: The not-predicate expression !e succeeds if e fails and fails if e succeeds, again consuming no input in either case. Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Donnerstag, 5. Mai 2022 um 12:04:07 UTC+2: > When it is 2022, but you are still living in 2013: > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/12758567/legitimate-uses-of-1 > > The question has two former answers from me. Stackoverflow didn't > allow me to delete them. Nobody else has answered, and you are > asking the wrong question. > > I find that ECLiPSe Prolog, SWI-Prolog, GNU Prolog and SICStus > Prolog support it. They all are able to support (\+)/1 inside DCG. > You can also add Tau-Prolog to the list and a couple > > of more Prolog systems. The (\+)/1 is nowadays part of PEG. > > parsing expression grammar (PEG) > Not-predicate: !e > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsing_expression_grammar > > It has million of uses, they are all legitimate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-05 03:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <232923ff-f599-4595-80e9-2e26eccdaa44n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #12947 |
Looks like UWN is confusing GitHub with Facebook, with his up votes. And sometimes UWN thinks its YouTube, with his down votes? Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Donnerstag, 5. Mai 2022 um 12:08:16 UTC+2: > Its also nicely explained: > > The not-predicate expression !e succeeds if e fails and fails if e > succeeds, again consuming no input in either case. > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Donnerstag, 5. Mai 2022 um 12:04:07 UTC+2: > > When it is 2022, but you are still living in 2013: > > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/12758567/legitimate-uses-of-1 > > > > The question has two former answers from me. Stackoverflow didn't > > allow me to delete them. Nobody else has answered, and you are > > asking the wrong question. > > > > I find that ECLiPSe Prolog, SWI-Prolog, GNU Prolog and SICStus > > Prolog support it. They all are able to support (\+)/1 inside DCG. > > You can also add Tau-Prolog to the list and a couple > > > > of more Prolog systems. The (\+)/1 is nowadays part of PEG. > > > > parsing expression grammar (PEG) > > Not-predicate: !e > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsing_expression_grammar > > > > It has million of uses, they are all legitimate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-05 03:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <471753a7-18f6-4474-8e42-ebe58ccf2508n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #12948 |
The declarative reading is relatively trivial. Take this example from above: p(A, B) :- \+ q(A, _), A = C, r(C, B). The declarative reading is as follows: p(A, B) ← ¬ ∃D q(A, D) ∧ A = C ∧ r(C, B). Its not really rocket science. But because its negation as failure you might also need Clark Completion etc.. Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Donnerstag, 5. Mai 2022 um 12:19:59 UTC+2: > Looks like UWN is confusing GitHub with Facebook, with his up votes. > And sometimes UWN thinks its YouTube, with his down votes? > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Donnerstag, 5. Mai 2022 um 12:08:16 UTC+2: > > Its also nicely explained: > > > > The not-predicate expression !e succeeds if e fails and fails if e > > succeeds, again consuming no input in either case. > > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Donnerstag, 5. Mai 2022 um 12:04:07 UTC+2: > > > When it is 2022, but you are still living in 2013: > > > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/12758567/legitimate-uses-of-1 > > > > > > The question has two former answers from me. Stackoverflow didn't > > > allow me to delete them. Nobody else has answered, and you are > > > asking the wrong question. > > > > > > I find that ECLiPSe Prolog, SWI-Prolog, GNU Prolog and SICStus > > > Prolog support it. They all are able to support (\+)/1 inside DCG. > > > You can also add Tau-Prolog to the list and a couple > > > > > > of more Prolog systems. The (\+)/1 is nowadays part of PEG. > > > > > > parsing expression grammar (PEG) > > > Not-predicate: !e > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsing_expression_grammar > > > > > > It has million of uses, they are all legitimate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-05 04:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <61050619-2ca0-429e-8f22-89acef6d4291n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #12949 |
Ok, the aspiring academic Prolog idiot might want to know more. But from PEG context it should be clear, that this is the declarative reading for parsing, i.e. mode p(+,-). Not sure whether it is suitable for other modes. Didn't use it in other modes... P.S.: Maybe if you look long enough out of a window, you might see a pink Unicorn fly by, its the same with bidirectional DCG grammars.... Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Donnerstag, 5. Mai 2022 um 12:56:04 UTC+2: > The declarative reading is relatively trivial. > Take this example from above: > > p(A, B) :- > \+ q(A, _), > A = C, > r(C, B). > > The declarative reading is as follows: > > p(A, B) ← > ¬ ∃D q(A, D) ∧ > A = C ∧ > r(C, B). > > Its not really rocket science. But because its negation > as failure you might also need Clark Completion etc.. > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Donnerstag, 5. Mai 2022 um 12:19:59 UTC+2: > > Looks like UWN is confusing GitHub with Facebook, with his up votes. > > And sometimes UWN thinks its YouTube, with his down votes? > > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Donnerstag, 5. Mai 2022 um 12:08:16 UTC+2: > > > Its also nicely explained: > > > > > > The not-predicate expression !e succeeds if e fails and fails if e > > > succeeds, again consuming no input in either case. > > > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Donnerstag, 5. Mai 2022 um 12:04:07 UTC+2: > > > > When it is 2022, but you are still living in 2013: > > > > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/12758567/legitimate-uses-of-1 > > > > > > > > The question has two former answers from me. Stackoverflow didn't > > > > allow me to delete them. Nobody else has answered, and you are > > > > asking the wrong question. > > > > > > > > I find that ECLiPSe Prolog, SWI-Prolog, GNU Prolog and SICStus > > > > Prolog support it. They all are able to support (\+)/1 inside DCG. > > > > You can also add Tau-Prolog to the list and a couple > > > > > > > > of more Prolog systems. The (\+)/1 is nowadays part of PEG. > > > > > > > > parsing expression grammar (PEG) > > > > Not-predicate: !e > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsing_expression_grammar > > > > > > > > It has million of uses, they are all legitimate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mostowski Collapse <janburse@fastmail.fm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-01-29 15:56 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <st3kin$c1as$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #12554 |
There is a fear that a Corona Wave will be like a wall, in that it overruns the infrastructure like a Tsunami. But implementing a prolog system not in 100% Prolog but in imperative language like C, even if its high-level like Java, will also hit a wall. Its much more easier to add functionality to a Prolog system if the Prolog system in 100% Prolog. Example: TauProlog hasn't even a discontiguous check! LoL Mostowski Collapse schrieb: > > 50 Years of Prolog and Beyond > 26 Jan 2022 - SWOT analysis > https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.10816 > > No mention of self-hosting systems? Like the AQUARIUS > Prolog system. I am not sure whether it was 100% self-hosting, > but had many parts written in Prolog itself, interpreter and compiler: > > Aquarius Prolog 1.0 > https://www.info.ucl.ac.be/~pvr/aquarius.html > > What is self-hosting? See Wikipedia: > > "In computer programming, self-hosting is the use of a > program as part of the toolchain or operating system that > produces new versions of that same program—for example, > a compiler that can compile its own source code." > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-hosting_%28compilers%29 > > Why isn't Prolog listed there? >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mostowski Collapse <janburse@fastmail.fm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-01-29 16:05 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <st3l2v$c1p4$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #12565 |
Maybe Unix, with its C language, and then C-Prolog (1982) sent the wrong message. But sooner or later every programming language will provide some pattern matching, and yearn to have Prolog logical variables. So maybe the wall is lower if other programming languages were used like JavaScript or Python, that have some pattern matching, for example Python introduce a new match control construct in release 3.10. So how is Tau Prolog classified: "In other words, tProlog pursues a similar intent with respect to tuProlog and JIProlog: bringing Prolog interpreters to high-level platforms and languages, except it focuses on another platform, JavaScript." This says nothing about the compiler and runtime architecture, its just a naive end-user view, of a blackbox. Mostowski Collapse schrieb: > There is a fear that a Corona Wave will be like a wall, > in that it overruns the infrastructure like a Tsunami. But > implementing a prolog system not in 100% Prolog but > > in imperative language like C, even if its high-level like > Java, will also hit a wall. Its much more easier to add > functionality to a Prolog system if the Prolog > > system in 100% Prolog. > > Example: > TauProlog hasn't even a discontiguous check! > > LoL > > Mostowski Collapse schrieb: >> >> 50 Years of Prolog and Beyond >> 26 Jan 2022 - SWOT analysis >> https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.10816 >> >> No mention of self-hosting systems? Like the AQUARIUS >> Prolog system. I am not sure whether it was 100% self-hosting, >> but had many parts written in Prolog itself, interpreter and compiler: >> >> Aquarius Prolog 1.0 >> https://www.info.ucl.ac.be/~pvr/aquarius.html >> >> What is self-hosting? See Wikipedia: >> >> "In computer programming, self-hosting is the use of a >> program as part of the toolchain or operating system that >> produces new versions of that same program—for example, >> a compiler that can compile its own source code." >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-hosting_%28compilers%29 >> >> Why isn't Prolog listed there? >> >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mostowski Collapse <janburse@fastmail.fm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-01-29 16:56 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <st3o2o$c3rf$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #12566 |
Pitty Logtalk isn't self hosting. So Logtalk doesn't trust Logtalk as an implementation language of the Logtalk transpiler? Proof that it isn't self hosting, this here is still Prolog and not Logtalk: core compiler and runtime https://github.com/LogtalkDotOrg/logtalk3/blob/master/core/core.pl LoL Today I had a little use case, where I could use some object orientation or some such on Dogelog Player. A style check, which works against different data models. So a future version of Dogelog Player would be self hosting and object oriented? Mostowski Collapse schrieb: > Maybe Unix, with its C language, and then > C-Prolog (1982) sent the wrong message. > But sooner or later every programming > > language will provide some pattern matching, > and yearn to have Prolog logical variables. > So maybe the wall is lower if other > > programming languages were used like JavaScript > or Python, that have some pattern matching, > for example Python introduce a new match > > control construct in release 3.10. So how > is Tau Prolog classified: > > "In other words, tProlog pursues a similar > intent with respect to tuProlog and JIProlog: > bringing Prolog interpreters to high-level > platforms and languages, except it focuses > on another platform, JavaScript." > > This says nothing about the compiler and > runtime architecture, its just a naive > end-user view, of a blackbox. > > Mostowski Collapse schrieb: >> There is a fear that a Corona Wave will be like a wall, >> in that it overruns the infrastructure like a Tsunami. But >> implementing a prolog system not in 100% Prolog but >> >> in imperative language like C, even if its high-level like >> Java, will also hit a wall. Its much more easier to add >> functionality to a Prolog system if the Prolog >> >> system in 100% Prolog. >> >> Example: >> TauProlog hasn't even a discontiguous check! >> >> LoL >> >> Mostowski Collapse schrieb: >>> >>> 50 Years of Prolog and Beyond >>> 26 Jan 2022 - SWOT analysis >>> https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.10816 >>> >>> No mention of self-hosting systems? Like the AQUARIUS >>> Prolog system. I am not sure whether it was 100% self-hosting, >>> but had many parts written in Prolog itself, interpreter and compiler: >>> >>> Aquarius Prolog 1.0 >>> https://www.info.ucl.ac.be/~pvr/aquarius.html >>> >>> What is self-hosting? See Wikipedia: >>> >>> "In computer programming, self-hosting is the use of a >>> program as part of the toolchain or operating system that >>> produces new versions of that same program—for example, >>> a compiler that can compile its own source code." >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-hosting_%28compilers%29 >>> >>> Why isn't Prolog listed there? >>> >> >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-01-31 10:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <75bf3b00-5123-49af-a1a8-18138c5333acn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #12567 |
Can we squeeze McCune's Method into Dogelog Player? Yes! Thanks to Josephs Vidal-Rosset, who asked about Quine's Method (I call it Boole's Method), we can do the squeeze. Just use Boole's Method as the backend SAT Solver. And it can already do: ?- falsify_fol((?[X]:p(X) => ![Y]:p(Y)), 2), !. p(0). true. ?- falsify_fol((![Y]: ?[X]:p(X,Y) => ?[Z]:![T]:p(Z,T)), 2), !. p(0, 1). p(1, 0). true. See also: McCune’s Method from 1994 in Dogelog Player https://twitter.com/dogelogch/status/1488165681434697728 McCune’s Method from 1994 in Dogelog Player https://www.facebook.com/groups/dogelog
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-01-31 10:45 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <75175c3a-efc9-4880-8990-680ddf14765an@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #12571 |
Just enjoying a TV show NOVA Alaska Dinosaurs, they talk about small and big Dinosaurs. Didn't the big Dinosaurs get extinct, and the small Dinosaurs survived in the form of birds? But I wouldn't say Dogelog is actually a Bird. It could also be a Snake that bites its tail, in case it becomes self hosting. Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Montag, 31. Januar 2022 um 19:37:08 UTC+1: > Can we squeeze McCune's Method into Dogelog > Player? Yes! Thanks to Josephs Vidal-Rosset, who asked > about Quine's Method (I call it Boole's Method), > > we can do the squeeze. Just use Boole's Method as > the backend SAT Solver. And it can already do: > > ?- falsify_fol((?[X]:p(X) => ![Y]:p(Y)), 2), !. > p(0). > true. > > ?- falsify_fol((![Y]: ?[X]:p(X,Y) => ?[Z]:![T]:p(Z,T)), 2), !. > p(0, 1). > p(1, 0). > true. > > See also: > > McCune’s Method from 1994 in Dogelog Player > https://twitter.com/dogelogch/status/1488165681434697728 > > McCune’s Method from 1994 in Dogelog Player > https://www.facebook.com/groups/dogelog
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-02 12:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c94e6149-d42c-481c-ace9-d81108d6f786n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #12554 |
Look Ma, a FOL resolution theorem prover in Prolog: See also: http://logic.stanford.edu/intrologic/chapters/chapter_14.html many([], S, S). many([C|T], S, R) :- next(C, T, S, R). next(C, T, S, R) :- member(D, S), weaker(D, C), !, many(T, S, R). next(C, T, S, R) :- filter(S, C, K), apply(C, K, H), append(T, H, J), many(J, [C|K], R). apply(C, S, T) :- findall(E, (member(D, S), resolvent(C, D, E)), T). resolvent(C, D, E) :- select(A, C, H), factor(A, H, C2), select(B, D, J), factor(B, J, D2), opposite(A, B), append(C2, D2, E). opposite(pos(A), neg(A)). opposite(neg(A), pos(A)). factor(_, C, C). factor(A, C, C2) :- select(A, C, H), factor(A, H, C2). filter([], _, []). filter([D|L], C, R) :- weaker(C, D), !, filter(L, C, R). filter([D|L], C, [D|R]) :- filter(L, C, R). weaker(C, D) :- \+ \+ (numbervars(D, 0, _), subset(C, D)). subset([], _). subset([X|L], R) :- member(X, R), subset(L, R). % ?- many([[pos(p(X)),pos(p(Y))],[neg(p(U)),neg(p(V))]],[],S). % S = [[]].
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-03 02:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b852be37-8238-4ef0-9c96-3381c7f92487n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #13003 |
Ok, forgot about the occurs check. This should also have either: :- set_prolog_flag(occurs_check, true) Or then sprinkled with calls to: unify_occurs_check(_,_) When variables occur non-linearly in a clause. Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Donnerstag, 2. Juni 2022 um 21:03:37 UTC+2: > Look Ma, a FOL resolution theorem prover in Prolog: > See also: http://logic.stanford.edu/intrologic/chapters/chapter_14.html > > many([], S, S). > many([C|T], S, R) :- next(C, T, S, R). > > next(C, T, S, R) :- member(D, S), weaker(D, C), !, many(T, S, R). > next(C, T, S, R) :- filter(S, C, K), apply(C, K, H), > append(T, H, J), many(J, [C|K], R). > > apply(C, S, T) :- > findall(E, (member(D, S), resolvent(C, D, E)), T). > > resolvent(C, D, E) :- > select(A, C, H), factor(A, H, C2), > select(B, D, J), factor(B, J, D2), > opposite(A, B), > append(C2, D2, E). > > opposite(pos(A), neg(A)). > opposite(neg(A), pos(A)). > > factor(_, C, C). > factor(A, C, C2) :- select(A, C, H), factor(A, H, C2). > > filter([], _, []). > filter([D|L], C, R) :- weaker(C, D), !, filter(L, C, R). > filter([D|L], C, [D|R]) :- filter(L, C, R). > > weaker(C, D) :- \+ \+ (numbervars(D, 0, _), subset(C, D)). > > subset([], _). > subset([X|L], R) :- member(X, R), subset(L, R). > > % ?- many([[pos(p(X)),pos(p(Y))],[neg(p(U)),neg(p(V))]],[],S). > % S = [[]].
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-03 02:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f0d280e5-5b2d-4170-aaad-39e1bd109939n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #13004 |
Corr.:: unify_with_occurs_check(_,_) Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 3. Juni 2022 um 11:44:20 UTC+2: > Ok, forgot about the occurs check. > > This should also have either: > :- set_prolog_flag(occurs_check, true) > > Or then sprinkled with calls to: > unify_occurs_check(_,_) > > When variables occur non-linearly in a clause. > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Donnerstag, 2. Juni 2022 um 21:03:37 UTC+2: > > Look Ma, a FOL resolution theorem prover in Prolog: > > See also: http://logic.stanford.edu/intrologic/chapters/chapter_14.html > > > > many([], S, S). > > many([C|T], S, R) :- next(C, T, S, R). > > > > next(C, T, S, R) :- member(D, S), weaker(D, C), !, many(T, S, R). > > next(C, T, S, R) :- filter(S, C, K), apply(C, K, H), > > append(T, H, J), many(J, [C|K], R). > > > > apply(C, S, T) :- > > findall(E, (member(D, S), resolvent(C, D, E)), T). > > > > resolvent(C, D, E) :- > > select(A, C, H), factor(A, H, C2), > > select(B, D, J), factor(B, J, D2), > > opposite(A, B), > > append(C2, D2, E). > > > > opposite(pos(A), neg(A)). > > opposite(neg(A), pos(A)). > > > > factor(_, C, C). > > factor(A, C, C2) :- select(A, C, H), factor(A, H, C2). > > > > filter([], _, []). > > filter([D|L], C, R) :- weaker(C, D), !, filter(L, C, R). > > filter([D|L], C, [D|R]) :- filter(L, C, R). > > > > weaker(C, D) :- \+ \+ (numbervars(D, 0, _), subset(C, D)). > > > > subset([], _). > > subset([X|L], R) :- member(X, R), subset(L, R). > > > > % ?- many([[pos(p(X)),pos(p(Y))],[neg(p(U)),neg(p(V))]],[],S). > > % S = [[]].
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-03 03:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5b00dab0-832f-4fbe-b319-3d459d856e53n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #13005 |
My resolution theorem prover is an attempt to fix a bug
with Markus Triskas resolution theorem prover:
Resolution Calculus for Propositional Logic
pl_resolvent( ... ) :-
select(Q, As0, As),
select(not(Q), Bs0, Bs),
append(As, Bs, Rs0),
https://www.metalevel.at/logic/plres.pl
Mentioned here:
Theorem Proving with Prolog
https://www.metalevel.at/prolog/theoremproving
But when one reads the fine print by Markus Triska, it says
for propositional logic. Not sure whether it works for first
order logic (FOL) as well? There is a FOL example {p(X), p(Y)}
and {~p(U), ~p(V)} which hints that a full flegded resolution
theorem prover needs also “factoring”. Making a resolution
theorem prover only complete when it implements
resolution step with factoring:
> Φ
> ψ
> -------------------------------
> ((Φ’-{φ})∪(Ψ’-{¬ψ}))σ
> where τ is a variable renaming on Φ
> where Φ’ is a factor of Φτ and φ∈Φ’
> where Ψ’ is a factor of Ψ and ¬ψ∈Ψ’
> where σ=mgu(φ, ψ)
> http://logic.stanford.edu/intrologic/chapters/chapter_14.html
Any full fledged resolution theorem provers around written in Prolog?
Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 3. Juni 2022 um 11:49:27 UTC+2:
> Corr.::
>
> unify_with_occurs_check(_,_)
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 3. Juni 2022 um 11:44:20 UTC+2:
> > Ok, forgot about the occurs check.
> >
> > This should also have either:
> > :- set_prolog_flag(occurs_check, true)
> >
> > Or then sprinkled with calls to:
> > unify_occurs_check(_,_)
> >
> > When variables occur non-linearly in a clause.
> > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Donnerstag, 2. Juni 2022 um 21:03:37 UTC+2:
> > > Look Ma, a FOL resolution theorem prover in Prolog:
> > > See also: http://logic.stanford.edu/intrologic/chapters/chapter_14.html
> > >
> > > many([], S, S).
> > > many([C|T], S, R) :- next(C, T, S, R).
> > >
> > > next(C, T, S, R) :- member(D, S), weaker(D, C), !, many(T, S, R).
> > > next(C, T, S, R) :- filter(S, C, K), apply(C, K, H),
> > > append(T, H, J), many(J, [C|K], R).
> > >
> > > apply(C, S, T) :-
> > > findall(E, (member(D, S), resolvent(C, D, E)), T).
> > >
> > > resolvent(C, D, E) :-
> > > select(A, C, H), factor(A, H, C2),
> > > select(B, D, J), factor(B, J, D2),
> > > opposite(A, B),
> > > append(C2, D2, E).
> > >
> > > opposite(pos(A), neg(A)).
> > > opposite(neg(A), pos(A)).
> > >
> > > factor(_, C, C).
> > > factor(A, C, C2) :- select(A, C, H), factor(A, H, C2).
> > >
> > > filter([], _, []).
> > > filter([D|L], C, R) :- weaker(C, D), !, filter(L, C, R).
> > > filter([D|L], C, [D|R]) :- filter(L, C, R).
> > >
> > > weaker(C, D) :- \+ \+ (numbervars(D, 0, _), subset(C, D)).
> > >
> > > subset([], _).
> > > subset([X|L], R) :- member(X, R), subset(L, R).
> > >
> > > % ?- many([[pos(p(X)),pos(p(Y))],[neg(p(U)),neg(p(V))]],[],S).
> > > % S = [[]].
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-10 05:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d5981258-7636-4545-9835-b428d67d4326n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #13006 |
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]
| From | Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-25 02:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1acaa5f3-171d-4417-bd41-32a9578db900n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #13008 |
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]
| From | Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-25 02:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b5c64f15-9b88-4b90-9c2e-91055c7eb63fn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #13019 |
I feel I have not the according experience. Will redo this stuff now for Dogelog Player after having it in formerly Jekejeke Prolog and still discovering new corners. Maybe can tell more in a few years. Also experience from formerly Jekejeke Prolog are that things might look different for UrlConnection, since the server might do the BOM detection and the client doesn’t need. I guess SWI-Prolog has also some experience here through http_open/3. Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Samstag, 25. Juni 2022 um 11:39:42 UTC+2: > 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]
| From | Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-12 00:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3cafa634-538b-40a3-a4a9-2f68abf240f5n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #13020 |
An ode to the most annoying people in Prolog: Markus Triska, this wasn't my question. On the same grounds you could remove (\+)/1 from Prolog. Doesn't make any sense what you write since Prolog has dual use, pure and impure. If you want to provide a fully pure language you have to rename Scryer Prolog into something Scryer XXX, where XXX is this language. And if your attempt is at a pure language that is also aimed at bootstrapping the system itself, then you have to demonstrate this for your XXX. But to the best of my knowledge it is still called Scryer Prolog and not Scryer XXX and I do not find a single paper about some XXX that would be the basis for this utopian Scryer XXX from nowhere land. Scryer Prolog rather refers repeatedly to WAM which supports the cut and friends. What is your XXX exactly? Your bragging seems rather moot and annoying nonsense in the context of Scryer Prolog which is based on WAM. If this were a repository of another language dedicated to this Scryer XXX, your comments would make sense. But as they are now distributed all over the place, they rather look like disorganized debris to me, that landed in the wrong place. Maybe open a new repository for your Scryer XXX instead of bothering people with your ever repeating nonsense, that is anyway trivially evident for any Prologer who knows his cut?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-12 01:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a9db6e9e-f0e8-49e0-9126-d14b9073ec58n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #13042 |
Ignoring the users of a Prolog system was always a good strategy: And? Whats your point exactly? The same happens here: ?- nonvar(X). false. ?- X = a, nonvar(X). X = a. Do you also suggest to remove nonvar/1. nonvar/1 is part of the ISO core standard. forall/2 can be found in this document: New built-in flags, predicates, and functions proposal 8.10.4 forall/2 ISO/IEC DTR 13211-1:2006 https://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/ulrich/iso-prolog/N208 Which had these people behind it, potential users of it: Bart Demoen (Belgium) Jan Wielemaker, (Netherlands) Joachim Schimpf (UK) Jonathan Hodgson (USA) Katsuhiko Nakamura (Japan) Klaus Daessler (Germany) Mary Kroening (USA) Michael Covington (USA) Neng-Fu Zhou (USA) Paulo Moura (Portugal) Pierre Deransart (France) Péter Szabó (Hungary) Péter Szeredi (Hungary) Rémy Haemmerlé (France) Richard O'Keefe (NZ) Roberto Bagnara (Italy) Roger Scowen (UK) Ulrich Neumerkel (Austria) So its one, Markus Triska, against many. I am only voicing what many expect anyway from a Prolog system. Make a GitHub search, you find many places where it is used by some Prolog programmer. Its kind of staple food. Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Dienstag, 12. Juli 2022 um 09:45:36 UTC+2: > An ode to the most annoying people in Prolog: > > Markus Triska, this wasn't my question. On the same grounds > you could remove (\+)/1 from Prolog. Doesn't make any sense > what you write since Prolog has dual use, pure and impure. > > If you want to provide a fully pure language you have to > rename Scryer Prolog into something Scryer XXX, where > XXX is this language. And if your attempt is at a pure language > > that is also aimed at bootstrapping the system itself, then > you have to demonstrate this for your XXX. But to the best of > my knowledge it is still called Scryer Prolog and not > > Scryer XXX and I do not find a single paper about some XXX > that would be the basis for this utopian Scryer XXX from nowhere > land. Scryer Prolog rather refers repeatedly to WAM which supports > > the cut and friends. What is your XXX exactly? Your bragging seems > rather moot and annoying nonsense in the context of Scryer Prolog > which is based on WAM. If this were a repository of another language > > dedicated to this Scryer XXX, your comments would make sense. > But as they are now distributed all over the place, they rather > look like disorganized debris to me, that landed in the wrong place. > > Maybe open a new repository for your Scryer XXX instead of > bothering people with your ever repeating nonsense, that is > anyway trivially evident for any Prologer who knows his cut?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.prolog
csiph-web