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

Groups > sci.logic > #341866 > unrolled thread

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

Back to article view | Back to sci.logic

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Clueless Moron and Paid Putin Troll (Re: Arrow Functions can do Existential Quantifier) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-06 22:50 +0100
    2.1 Logical variables and equations (Re: Clueless Moron and Paid Putin Troll) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-06 22:51 +0100
      Re: 2.1 Logical variables and equations (Re: Clueless Moron and Paid Putin Troll) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-06 22:52 +0100
        Re: 2.1 Logical variables and equations (Re: Clueless Moron and Paid Putin Troll) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-06 22:52 +0100
        Re: 2.1 Logical variables and equations (Re: Clueless Moron and Paid Putin Troll) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-06 23:56 +0100
        Re: 2.1 Logical variables and equations (Re: Clueless Moron and Paid Putin Troll) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-06 23:58 +0100
          What does Type Free mean? (Re: 2.1 Logical variables and equations) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-06 23:59 +0100
    A noiseless patient Spider is a Pussy Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-07 00:03 +0100
    Prolog PIP-0110: Its a Floating-Point Multiverse? [Stoic Grisu versus Rest of World] (Re: Arrow Functions can do Existential Quantifier) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-04-29 00:40 +0200
      Testing NVIDIA A10G / XVM Engine v10.2.4 (Permion Federal AI) (Re: Prolog PIP-0110: Its a Floating-Point Multiverse? [Stoic Grisu versus Rest of World]) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-04-29 02:14 +0200
        This could be a serious security vulnerability (Re: Testing NVIDIA A10G / XVM Engine v10.2.4 (Permion Federal AI)) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-04-29 02:37 +0200
          Logtalk big time salami slicing [For "Whales" (ultra-high rollers)?] (Re: This could be a serious security vulnerability) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-04-29 11:21 +0200
      format/3 that does not have some Spaghetti logic (Re: Prolog PIP-0110: Its a Floating-Point Multiverse?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-04-30 17:50 +0200

#341866 — Clueless Moron and Paid Putin Troll (Re: Arrow Functions can do Existential Quantifier)

Hi,

Its from this paper:

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

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

troll you are, getting money from Putin.

Bye

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

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

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#341867 — 2.1 Logical variables and equations (Re: Clueless Moron and Paid Putin Troll)

Hi,

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

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

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

∃x y z. x = <y,3>; x= <2,z>; y

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

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

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

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

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

Bye

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

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

#341868 — Re: 2.1 Logical variables and equations (Re: Clueless Moron and Paid Putin Troll)

Hi,

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

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

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

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

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

example the following is true:

∃x x = f(y)

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

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

ground terms or some other value domain.

Bye

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

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

#341869 — Re: 2.1 Logical variables and equations (Re: Clueless Moron and Paid Putin Troll)

Hi,

We can though prove in FOL:

∀y∃!x x = f(y)

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

∃x∃y(x = f(y))

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

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

Bye

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

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

#341870 — Re: 2.1 Logical variables and equations (Re: Clueless Moron and Paid Putin Troll)

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

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

Bye

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

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

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

#341871 — Re: 2.1 Logical variables and equations (Re: Clueless Moron and Paid Putin Troll)

Hi,

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

Bye

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

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

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

#341872 — What does Type Free mean? (Re: 2.1 Logical variables and equations)

Hi,

I was crediting these guys for arrow functions:

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

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

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

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

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

Bye

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

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

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

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

#341873 — A noiseless patient Spider is a Pussy

Hi,

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

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

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

Bye

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

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

#345722 — Prolog PIP-0110: Its a Floating-Point Multiverse? [Stoic Grisu versus Rest of World] (Re: Arrow Functions can do Existential Quantifier)

Hi,

Thats was fun, maybe somebody did use the Stoic Grisu,
no delusional digits, only zeros:

/* Dogelog Player for Java, Dogelog Player for JavaScript */

?- between(95,105,N), format('~6f', [pi**N]), nl, fail; true.
169526621072093600000000000000000000000000000000.000000
532583587347989900000000000000000000000000000000.000000
1673160685434943000000000000000000000000000000000.000000
5256389317637680000000000000000000000000000000000.000000
16513434064698400000000000000000000000000000000000.000000
51878483143195920000000000000000000000000000000000.000000
162981061522046250000000000000000000000000000000000.000000
512020105551926600000000000000000000000000000000000.000000
1608558602092203000000000000000000000000000000000000.000000
5053435887201532000000000000000000000000000000000000.000000
15875837058619354000000000000000000000000000000000000.000000
true.

/* Dogelog Player for CPython, Scryer Prolog */

?- between(95,105,N), format("~6f", [pi**N]), nl, fail; true.
169526621072093604906820176085840076682051977216.000000
532583587347989896682185959640830761243896709120.000000
1673160685434943094521965146828670065372972449792.000000
5256389317637679918948413843353324366868288372736.000000
16513434064698399680249672647558109095601897472000.000000
51878483143195924744806997083865846970332907307008.000000
162981061522046250302000391689502574507182910341120.000000
512020105551926606134531253131181174736461909458944.000000
1608558602092203016045060452811678201001748662845440.000000
5053435887201532208668864202632055738347047857684480.000000
15875837058619353962143820726017670908628371861667840.000000
    true.

/* SWI-Prolog */

?- between(95,105,N), format('~6f', [pi**N]), nl, fail; true.
169526621072093767166097005299203468260062265344.000000
532583587347990464589654861887602631766932717568.000000
1673160685434944717114733438962303981153075331072.000000
5256389317637684462208165061327499331052576440320.000000
16513434064698415257140248252040994687090885132288.000000
51878483143195987052369299501797389336288857948160.000000
162981061522046416455499864803986687483065445384192.000000
512020105551927104595029672474633513664109514588160.000000
1608558602092204677580055183956519330760574013276160.000000
5053435887201537525580847342295547353575288979062784.000000
15875837058619369912879770145008145754313095225802752.000000
true.

The Prolog systems with the delusional digits made my day,
they even don't agree in the delusional digits itself.

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

#345723 — Testing NVIDIA A10G / XVM Engine v10.2.4 (Permion Federal AI) (Re: Prolog PIP-0110: Its a Floating-Point Multiverse? [Stoic Grisu versus Rest of World])

Hi,

Ok, leaving the beaten path of my Prolog system
probing, and look at some newer beast.

This looks bad:

?- format('~6f', [pi**14]), nl.
9122171.18175435

Expected result:

?- format('~6f', [pi**14]), nl.
9122171.181754

Bye

BTW: Tested using this test tester:

X-Machines Virtual Machine (XVM™) is a neurosymbolic virtual AI 
processor which combines neural processes with symbolic reasoning.
https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/pp/prodview-6luxq22pgmehe

Mild Shock schrieb:
 >>> See also:
 >>> https://prolog-lang.org/ImprovementsForum/0110-format.html

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

#345724 — This could be a serious security vulnerability (Re: Testing NVIDIA A10G / XVM Engine v10.2.4 (Permion Federal AI))

Hi,

The 9122171.18175435 is a little offending, what if one
keeps a federal secret after the 6 fraction digit?

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> Ok, leaving the beaten path of my Prolog system
> probing, and look at some newer beast.
> 
> This looks bad:
> 
> ?- format('~6f', [pi**14]), nl.
> 9122171.18175435
> 
> Expected result:
> 
> ?- format('~6f', [pi**14]), nl.
> 9122171.181754
> 
> Bye
> 
> BTW: Tested using this test tester:
> 
> X-Machines Virtual Machine (XVM™) is a neurosymbolic virtual AI 
> processor which combines neural processes with symbolic reasoning.
> https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/pp/prodview-6luxq22pgmehe
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>  >>> See also:
>  >>> https://prolog-lang.org/ImprovementsForum/0110-format.html
> 
> 

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

#345730 — Logtalk big time salami slicing [For "Whales" (ultra-high rollers)?] (Re: This could be a serious security vulnerability)

Hi,

Ross Finlayson schrieb:
 > Or shaves pennies.

 >>> X-Machines Virtual Machine (XVM™) is a neurosymbolic virtual AI
 >>> processor which combines neural processes with symbolic reasoning.
 >>> https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/pp/prodview-6luxq22pgmehe

Cost/hour: $200,000.00

LoL

Bye

P.S.: If it could do some quant trading magic, one would
possibly pay so much. But Logtalk is simply too lame:

Version release notes
XVM Engine v10.2.4 is the full engine capable of running
all XVM and Logtalk programs, excluding for logtalk tools.

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> The 9122171.18175435 is a little offending, what if one
> keeps a federal secret after the 6 fraction digit?
> 
> Bye
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Ok, leaving the beaten path of my Prolog system
>> probing, and look at some newer beast.
>>
>> This looks bad:
>>
>> ?- format('~6f', [pi**14]), nl.
>> 9122171.18175435
>>
>> Expected result:
>>
>> ?- format('~6f', [pi**14]), nl.
>> 9122171.181754
>>
>> Bye
>>
>> BTW: Tested using this test tester:
>>
>> X-Machines Virtual Machine (XVM™) is a neurosymbolic virtual AI 
>> processor which combines neural processes with symbolic reasoning.
>> https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/pp/prodview-6luxq22pgmehe
>>
>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>  >>> See also:
>>  >>> https://prolog-lang.org/ImprovementsForum/0110-format.html
>>
>>
> 

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

#345745 — format/3 that does not have some Spaghetti logic (Re: Prolog PIP-0110: Its a Floating-Point Multiverse?)

Hi,

How it started:

Trealla Prolog is being updated for the
proposal (only failing some of the table
related tests as of v2.85.19).

How its going:

The test case for ~r and ~R are useless.
Very bad converage for a format/3 that does
not have some Spaghetti logic. Big integer

and negative numbers missing. Now I find:
```
/* Trealla Prolog v2.94.3 */
?- format('~11R', [-7625597484987]), nl.
%%% crash
```
Main problem how does one get coverage
without thinking? Copying from "ghost" Quintus
manual doesn't assure coverage. Theoretically

a coverage tool, that shows code coverage when
a test suite is run, would help. Still it might
not capture certain data points if the code

doesn't have according branching. So it needs
either more human effort or fuzz testing.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzing

Bye

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.logic

csiph-web