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
            Hyperspectral Measurements for Inter-Calibration (Re: Logtalk big time salami slicing) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-07-27 11:28 +0200
              Forget your Sputnik Commodore C64 with 8088 [Logic Tiling] (Re: Hyperspectral Measurements for Inter-Calibration) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-07-27 11:29 +0200
                Train yourself to become a nosomatic AI chirurgeon (Re: Forget your Sputnik Commodore C64 with 8088 [Logic Tiling]) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-07-27 11:40 +0200
                Re: Forget your Sputnik Commodore C64 with 8088 [Logic Tiling] (Re: Hyperspectral Measurements for Inter-Calibration) Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-07-27 08:07 -0600
              Brova you enjoy made up nonsense? [Einstein tech cult] (Re: Hyperspectral Measurements for Inter-Calibration (Re: Logtalk big time salami slicing) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-07-27 17:08 +0200
                NVIDIA Einstein and Q8.24 RGB Values [Earth and Star Gazers] (Re: Brova you enjoy made up nonsense?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-07-27 17:33 +0200
                  Just lookup orbital AI and SpaceX (Re: NVIDIA Einstein and Q8.24 RGB Values) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-07-27 17:38 +0200
                Re: Brova you enjoy made up nonsense? [Einstein tech cult] (Re: Hyperspectral Measurements for Inter-Calibration (Re: Logtalk big time salami slicing) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-27 18:55 -0700
      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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#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]

#348247 — Hyperspectral Measurements for Inter-Calibration (Re: Logtalk big time salami slicing)

Hi,

Hyperspectral measurements for inter-calibration,
reached a significant milestone this summer.

The naval observatory only uses fidget spinners
to measure time, so forget Colorado.

Bye

Ross Finlayson schrieb:
 >
 > So, there's at least three accounts of what can define "measurement of
 > time", in the micro, meso, and macro.
 >
 > Then these days pretty much the world relies on "the naval observatory
 > in Colorado" if not so much "the clock tower in Greenwich", as with
 > regards to ye olde UTC, CUT, "Zulu", and so on, time.
 >
 > About relativity theory and "measuring rods and clocks", then, it's
 > similar that "metric and norm" for "length and distance" also has
 > about the Planckian what are "iota-values" as it would be, or, "Pauli
 > Plancks", or "Dirac's Pauli Plancks", of measuring space, vis-a-vis,
 > measuring time.
 >
 >
 > So, there are at least three accounts of what defines measuring time,
 > and at least three accounts of what defines measuring space.
 >
 >
 > Then, since relativity theory is defined by what does that,
 > it has the various ways, to so fulfill doing that.
 >
 >
 > Yeah, I know, most "professional physicists" only have one of those
 > on their little note-card with which they passed graduate school.

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> Ross Finlayson schrieb:
>  > Or shaves pennies.
> 
>  >>> X-Machines Virtual Machine (XVM™) is a neurosymbolic virtual AI
>  >>> processor which combines neural processes with symbolic reasoning.
>  >>> https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/pp/prodview-6luxq22pgmehe
> 
> Cost/hour: $200,000.00
> 
> LoL
> 
> Bye
> 
> P.S.: If it could do some quant trading magic, one would
> possibly pay so much. But Logtalk is simply too lame:
> 
> Version release notes
> XVM Engine v10.2.4 is the full engine capable of running
> all XVM and Logtalk programs, excluding for logtalk tools.
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> The 9122171.18175435 is a little offending, what if one
>> keeps a federal secret after the 6 fraction digit?
>>
>> Bye
>>
>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Ok, leaving the beaten path of my Prolog system
>>> probing, and look at some newer beast.
>>>
>>> This looks bad:
>>>
>>> ?- format('~6f', [pi**14]), nl.
>>> 9122171.18175435
>>>
>>> Expected result:
>>>
>>> ?- format('~6f', [pi**14]), nl.
>>> 9122171.181754
>>>
>>> Bye
>>>
>>> BTW: Tested using this test tester:
>>>
>>> X-Machines Virtual Machine (XVM™) is a neurosymbolic virtual AI 
>>> processor which combines neural processes with symbolic reasoning.
>>> https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/pp/prodview-6luxq22pgmehe
>>>
>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>  >>> See also:
>>>  >>> https://prolog-lang.org/ImprovementsForum/0110-format.html
>>>
>>>
>>
> 

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

#348248 — Forget your Sputnik Commodore C64 with 8088 [Logic Tiling] (Re: Hyperspectral Measurements for Inter-Calibration)

Hi,

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

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

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

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

course for your Sputnik Commodore C64 with 8088.

Bye

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

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

#348249 — Train yourself to become a nosomatic AI chirurgeon (Re: Forget your Sputnik Commodore C64 with 8088 [Logic Tiling])

Hi,

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

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

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

Bye

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

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

#348253 — Re: Forget your Sputnik Commodore C64 with 8088 [Logic Tiling] (Re: Hyperspectral Measurements for Inter-Calibration)

Mild Shock wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> The nature of time has puzzled people -- from the ancient
> Greeks to the present day -- Especially the nosomatic
> perception of time is a hot topic now.

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

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

#348256 — Brova you enjoy made up nonsense? [Einstein tech cult] (Re: Hyperspectral Measurements for Inter-Calibration (Re: Logtalk big time salami slicing)

Hi,

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

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

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

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

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

is not the ultimate tech cult?

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

Plutonion and John Gabriel.

Bye

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


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

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

#348258 — NVIDIA Einstein and Q8.24 RGB Values [Earth and Star Gazers] (Re: Brova you enjoy made up nonsense?)

Hi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have Fun!

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> You refuse to undertand the NVIDIA Volta
> archecture. You claim to like in the
> sense of "That's a good quote" some
> 
> completely made up nonsense? Bravo! I just
> copied a nasa article title, which had nothing
> to do with "time" per se:
> 
> CLARREO Pathfinder
> https://science.nasa.gov/mission/clarreo-pathfinder/
> 
> Its more a very big vacuum cleaner, that can
> scan highly accurate measurements of sunlight
> reflected by the Earth and the Moon.
> 
> You are just a moron, that still feels harware
> evelution a treat, but would like to see data
> from a Einstein pathfinder. As if this
> 
> is not the ultimate tech cult?
> 
> As always you suck, like nobody else ever
> sucked on the usenet. You are just completely
> bonkers, the bigger crank than Archimedes
> 
> Plutonion and John Gabriel.
> 
> Bye
> 
> Ross Finlayson schrieb:
>> Well, like Einstein says, relativity is defined
>> by at least two different clocks -
>> might as well be three.
>>
>>
>>
>> That's a good quote, I quote me on that.
> 
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Hyperspectral measurements for inter-calibration,
>> reached a significant milestone this summer.
>>
>> The naval observatory only uses fidget spinners
>> to measure time, so forget Colorado.
>>
>> Bye
>>
>> Ross Finlayson schrieb:
>>  >
>>  > So, there's at least three accounts of what can define "measurement of
>>  > time", in the micro, meso, and macro.
>>  >
>>  > Then these days pretty much the world relies on "the naval observatory
>>  > in Colorado" if not so much "the clock tower in Greenwich", as with
>>  > regards to ye olde UTC, CUT, "Zulu", and so on, time.
>>  >
>>  > About relativity theory and "measuring rods and clocks", then, it's
>>  > similar that "metric and norm" for "length and distance" also has
>>  > about the Planckian what are "iota-values" as it would be, or, "Pauli
>>  > Plancks", or "Dirac's Pauli Plancks", of measuring space, vis-a-vis,
>>  > measuring time.
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > So, there are at least three accounts of what defines measuring time,
>>  > and at least three accounts of what defines measuring space.
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > Then, since relativity theory is defined by what does that,
>>  > it has the various ways, to so fulfill doing that.
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > Yeah, I know, most "professional physicists" only have one of those
>>  > on their little note-card with which they passed graduate school.
>>
>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Ross Finlayson schrieb:
>>>  > Or shaves pennies.
>>>
>>>  >>> X-Machines Virtual Machine (XVM™) is a neurosymbolic virtual AI
>>>  >>> processor which combines neural processes with symbolic reasoning.
>>>  >>> https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/pp/prodview-6luxq22pgmehe
>>>
>>> Cost/hour: $200,000.00
>>>
>>> LoL
>>>
>>> Bye
>>>
>>> P.S.: If it could do some quant trading magic, one would
>>> possibly pay so much. But Logtalk is simply too lame:
>>>
>>> Version release notes
>>> XVM Engine v10.2.4 is the full engine capable of running
>>> all XVM and Logtalk programs, excluding for logtalk tools.
>>>
>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> The 9122171.18175435 is a little offending, what if one
>>>> keeps a federal secret after the 6 fraction digit?
>>>>
>>>> Bye
>>>>
>>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok, leaving the beaten path of my Prolog system
>>>>> probing, and look at some newer beast.
>>>>>
>>>>> This looks bad:
>>>>>
>>>>> ?- format('~6f', [pi**14]), nl.
>>>>> 9122171.18175435
>>>>>
>>>>> Expected result:
>>>>>
>>>>> ?- format('~6f', [pi**14]), nl.
>>>>> 9122171.181754
>>>>>
>>>>> Bye
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW: Tested using this test tester:
>>>>>
>>>>> X-Machines Virtual Machine (XVM™) is a neurosymbolic virtual AI 
>>>>> processor which combines neural processes with symbolic reasoning.
>>>>> https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/pp/prodview-6luxq22pgmehe
>>>>>
>>>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>>>  >>> See also:
>>>>>  >>> https://prolog-lang.org/ImprovementsForum/0110-format.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
> 

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

#348259 — Just lookup orbital AI and SpaceX (Re: NVIDIA Einstein and Q8.24 RGB Values)

Hi,

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

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

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

already in space?

Bye

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

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

#348266 — Re: Brova you enjoy made up nonsense? [Einstein tech cult] (Re: Hyperspectral Measurements for Inter-Calibration (Re: Logtalk big time salami slicing)

On 07/27/2026 08:08 AM, Mild Shock wrote:
> Hi,
>
> You refuse to undertand the NVIDIA Volta
> archecture. You claim to like in the
> sense of "That's a good quote" some
>
> completely made up nonsense? Bravo! I just
> copied a nasa article title, which had nothing
> to do with "time" per se:
>
> CLARREO Pathfinder
> https://science.nasa.gov/mission/clarreo-pathfinder/
>
> Its more a very big vacuum cleaner, that can
> scan highly accurate measurements of sunlight
> reflected by the Earth and the Moon.
>
> You are just a moron, that still feels harware
> evelution a treat, but would like to see data
> from a Einstein pathfinder. As if this
>
> is not the ultimate tech cult?
>
> As always you suck, like nobody else ever
> sucked on the usenet. You are just completely
> bonkers, the bigger crank than Archimedes
>
> Plutonion and John Gabriel.
>
> Bye
>
> Ross Finlayson schrieb:
>> Well, like Einstein says, relativity is defined
>> by at least two different clocks -
>> might as well be three.
>>
>>
>>
>> That's a good quote, I quote me on that.
>
>
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Hyperspectral measurements for inter-calibration,
>> reached a significant milestone this summer.
>>
>> The naval observatory only uses fidget spinners
>> to measure time, so forget Colorado.
>>
>> Bye
>>
>> Ross Finlayson schrieb:
>>  >
>>  > So, there's at least three accounts of what can define "measurement of
>>  > time", in the micro, meso, and macro.
>>  >
>>  > Then these days pretty much the world relies on "the naval observatory
>>  > in Colorado" if not so much "the clock tower in Greenwich", as with
>>  > regards to ye olde UTC, CUT, "Zulu", and so on, time.
>>  >
>>  > About relativity theory and "measuring rods and clocks", then, it's
>>  > similar that "metric and norm" for "length and distance" also has
>>  > about the Planckian what are "iota-values" as it would be, or, "Pauli
>>  > Plancks", or "Dirac's Pauli Plancks", of measuring space, vis-a-vis,
>>  > measuring time.
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > So, there are at least three accounts of what defines measuring time,
>>  > and at least three accounts of what defines measuring space.
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > Then, since relativity theory is defined by what does that,
>>  > it has the various ways, to so fulfill doing that.
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > Yeah, I know, most "professional physicists" only have one of those
>>  > on their little note-card with which they passed graduate school.
>>
>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Ross Finlayson schrieb:
>>>  > Or shaves pennies.
>>>
>>>  >>> X-Machines Virtual Machine (XVM™) is a neurosymbolic virtual AI
>>>  >>> processor which combines neural processes with symbolic reasoning.
>>>  >>> https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/pp/prodview-6luxq22pgmehe
>>>
>>> Cost/hour: $200,000.00
>>>
>>> LoL
>>>
>>> Bye
>>>
>>> P.S.: If it could do some quant trading magic, one would
>>> possibly pay so much. But Logtalk is simply too lame:
>>>
>>> Version release notes
>>> XVM Engine v10.2.4 is the full engine capable of running
>>> all XVM and Logtalk programs, excluding for logtalk tools.
>>>
>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> The 9122171.18175435 is a little offending, what if one
>>>> keeps a federal secret after the 6 fraction digit?
>>>>
>>>> Bye
>>>>
>>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok, leaving the beaten path of my Prolog system
>>>>> probing, and look at some newer beast.
>>>>>
>>>>> This looks bad:
>>>>>
>>>>> ?- format('~6f', [pi**14]), nl.
>>>>> 9122171.18175435
>>>>>
>>>>> Expected result:
>>>>>
>>>>> ?- format('~6f', [pi**14]), nl.
>>>>> 9122171.181754
>>>>>
>>>>> Bye
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW: Tested using this test tester:
>>>>>
>>>>> X-Machines Virtual Machine (XVM™) is a neurosymbolic virtual AI
>>>>> processor which combines neural processes with symbolic reasoning.
>>>>> https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/pp/prodview-6luxq22pgmehe
>>>>>
>>>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>>>  >>> See also:
>>>>>  >>> https://prolog-lang.org/ImprovementsForum/0110-format.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

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



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

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

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


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

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



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

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

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

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


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

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



>

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


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

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


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





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

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

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

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


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



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

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



>

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

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

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

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

And compelling, ....



>

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


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


fall-gravity


>

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


>

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


According to "references", ....


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


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

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




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

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


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



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

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


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


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


>

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


>

So, there's at least three accounts of what can define "measurement of
time", in the micro, meso, and macro.

Then these days pretty much the world relies on "the naval observatory
in Colorado" if not so much "the clock tower in Greenwich", as with
regards to ye olde UTC, CUT, "Zulu", and so on, time.

About relativity theory and "measuring rods and clocks", then, it's
similar that "metric and norm" for "length and distance" also has
about the Planckian what are "iota-values" as it would be, or, "Pauli
Plancks", or "Dirac's Pauli Plancks", of measuring space, vis-a-vis,
measuring time.


So, there are at least three accounts of what defines measuring time,
and at least three accounts of what defines measuring space.


Then, since relativity theory is defined by what does that,
it has the various ways, to so fulfill doing that.


Yeah, I know, most "professional physicists" only have one of those
on their little note-card with which they passed graduate school.


>

Thanks for writing.

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

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

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

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







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

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.logic

csiph-web