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
                  Homework: Game Engine in WebGPU (Re: Train yourself to become a nosomatic AI chirurgeon) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-08-03 02:06 +0200
                    Johnny Depp prevention [Windows 11 etc...] (Re: Homework: Game Engine in WebGPU) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-08-03 18:17 +0200
                      But how can you deploy, when its ROM? (Re: Johnny Depp prevention [Windows 11 etc...]) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-08-03 18:21 +0200
                      New addition to π-WAM is π-WAM Assembly (Re: Johnny Depp prevention [Windows 11 etc...]) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-08-09 19:46 +0200
                  The future Numa Brains will be gorgeous (Was: Train yourself to become a nosomatic AI chirurgeon) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-09-25 19:10 +0200
                    Estimating P(doom E-graphs) to < 10% (Was: The future Numa Brains will be gorgeous) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-09-28 14:13 +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
              Dark Math Factories Interpret the Infinite! (Re: Hyperspectral Measurements for Inter-Calibration) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-10-02 18:38 +0200
              Dark Math Factories Interpret the Infinite! (Re: Hyperspectral Measurements for Inter-Calibration) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-10-02 18:39 +0200
                So it was a race against Buzzard. Well done! [Langlands FML and SML] (Was: Dark Math Factories Interpret the Infinite!) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-10-03 01:37 +0200
                  Math is the premier AI Victim [Billions of $USD later] (Re: So it was a race against Buzzard. Well done! [Langlands FML and SML]) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-10-08 13:11 +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
      Ljubljana School versus Zurich School (Re: 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> - 2026-08-03 20:16 +0200
        Big thanks to Ljubljana School [Searching 0xCAFFEE] (Re: Ljubljana School versus Zurich School) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-08-03 20:42 +0200
        Peking School versus Ljubljana School [Everything Is a Plugin] (Re: Ljubljana School versus Zurich School) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-08-21 17:44 +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]

#348312 — Homework: Game Engine in WebGPU (Re: Train yourself to become a nosomatic AI chirurgeon)

Hi,

Now that the debate with Chris M. Thomasson
has culminated in questions of elasticity,
I suggest this homework:

- Game Engine in WebGPU
   It will support the life cycle of sprites,
   like sprites comming out of nowhere,
   and being destroyed by arms,
   just like in Space invader.

This would be surely a fantastic exercise,
to see what a GPU can do and cannot do,
in respect of life cycle of threads, especially

modern GPUs that sell the CUDA dream.

Have Fun!

Become a nosomatic AI chirurgeon.

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> 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]

#348313 — Johnny Depp prevention [Windows 11 etc...] (Re: Homework: Game Engine in WebGPU)

Hi,

 > I've also added comp.theory so Mild Shock can comment.

 > that has different
 > *  sizeof ( void * ), and
 > *  sizeof ( void (*)( void ) ),

Could indicate a data RAM and code ROM model.
Which has then the advantage of:

Modern operating systems like Windows 11
enforce strict Data Execution Prevention (DEP)
(or NX/XD bit security features) to prevent
malicious programs from injecting and executing
code inside data-only memory regions.
https://root-nation.com/en/soft-en/lifehacks/en-dep-windows-all-about/

I adopted data RAM and code ROM model for
pi-WAM from Hack, which has the same separation:

Slide 58, Hack Computer
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Z_fxYmmRNXTkAzmZ6YMoX9NXZIRVCKiw/view

But my motivation was not Johnny Depp prevention.
Rather the caching of GPUs. Because WGSL
allows storage annotations read_write and

read. I use read_write for the data RAM
of my Hack VM variant, and read for the
code ROM of my Hack VM variant. You can

see that here, its open source:

@group(0) @binding(0) var<storage, read> code: array<i32>;
@group(0) @binding(1) var<storage, read_write> state: array<i32>;

11.4 Giga Lips with a Budget Laptop
https://github.com/Jean-Luc-Picard-2021/gigabudget

Hope this Helps!

Bye

Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson schrieb:
 > On 03/08/2026 6:28 PM, David Brown wrote:
 >> On 03/08/2026 11:41, Richard Harnden wrote:
 >>> On 03/08/2026 09:16, David Brown wrote:
 >>
 >>>> On most targets, function pointers are the same size as void* 
pointers. But there are exceptions, with some small microcontrollers and 
DSPs having different kinds of pointers with different sizes, depending 
on the memory space involved.  I have yet to see a situation where there 
was any reason for storing a function address in a "void*" rather than a 
more appropriate typedef, such as :
 >>>>
 >>>>      typedef void (*FVoid)(void);
 >>>
 >>> dlsym requires that pointer-to-function is compatible with a void*
 >>>
 >>
 >> As I say, I have yet to see a situation where using void* for 
function pointers was more appropriate than using a function pointer 
type.  If the OS system calls or standard OS libraries makes it a 
requirement that function pointers are converted to or from void* for 
some calls, then of course you need to follow those requirements - it's 
the people who designed the interfaces that made questionable design 
choices.
 >>
 >
 > Nope, you're wrong.  You're dead wrong.  The world isn't built on C,
 > even though here in comp.lang.c we like to pretend it is.
 >
 > Several language environments allow function generation on the fly,
 > these functions need to be garbage collected.  Common Lisp is an
 > example, therefore comp.lang.lisp is added to this discussion.
 >
 > I've also added comp.theory so Mild Shock can comment.
 >
 > You will have to go out of your way to make a computer architecture
 > incompatible with garbage collected and heap allocated binary code,
 > something I've been told SBCL does internally [1] to create an archi-
 > tecture that has different
 >
 > *  sizeof ( void * ), and
 > *  sizeof ( void (*)( void ) ),
 >
 > and when you do that, I'll just claim you're making a /malicious
 > computer architecture/ and refuse to use it.
 >
 >
 > [1] I've not looked at the code, but told the garbage collector can
 > and will at least move the code around, if not collect it.

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

#348314 — But how can you deploy, when its ROM? (Re: Johnny Depp prevention [Windows 11 etc...])

Hi,

Well there are two viewpoint, the "client"
of the GPU, which is the CPU, and the "server"
of the GPU, which is the command processor

queue of the GPU device. So basically as
a CPU client I can write the memory area,
that is later mapped to my GPU code storage.

And this way have a compiler, even written
in Prolog, that compiles pi-WAM to my Hack VM,
that can then be then deployed to GPU.

You could also try the same with a Tiny
LISP VM. And a grown up LISP to act as
the compiler. Would be a similar exercise.

Have Fun!

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
>  > I've also added comp.theory so Mild Shock can comment.
> 
>  > that has different
>  > *  sizeof ( void * ), and
>  > *  sizeof ( void (*)( void ) ),
> 
> Could indicate a data RAM and code ROM model.
> Which has then the advantage of:
> 
> Modern operating systems like Windows 11
> enforce strict Data Execution Prevention (DEP)
> (or NX/XD bit security features) to prevent
> malicious programs from injecting and executing
> code inside data-only memory regions.
> https://root-nation.com/en/soft-en/lifehacks/en-dep-windows-all-about/
> 
> I adopted data RAM and code ROM model for
> pi-WAM from Hack, which has the same separation:
> 
> Slide 58, Hack Computer
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Z_fxYmmRNXTkAzmZ6YMoX9NXZIRVCKiw/view
> 
> But my motivation was not Johnny Depp prevention.
> Rather the caching of GPUs. Because WGSL
> allows storage annotations read_write and
> 
> read. I use read_write for the data RAM
> of my Hack VM variant, and read for the
> code ROM of my Hack VM variant. You can
> 
> see that here, its open source:
> 
> @group(0) @binding(0) var<storage, read> code: array<i32>;
> @group(0) @binding(1) var<storage, read_write> state: array<i32>;
> 
> 11.4 Giga Lips with a Budget Laptop
> https://github.com/Jean-Luc-Picard-2021/gigabudget
> 
> Hope this Helps!
> 
> Bye
> 
> Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson schrieb:
>  > On 03/08/2026 6:28 PM, David Brown wrote:
>  >> On 03/08/2026 11:41, Richard Harnden wrote:
>  >>> On 03/08/2026 09:16, David Brown wrote:
>  >>
>  >>>> On most targets, function pointers are the same size as void* 
> pointers. But there are exceptions, with some small microcontrollers and 
> DSPs having different kinds of pointers with different sizes, depending 
> on the memory space involved.  I have yet to see a situation where there 
> was any reason for storing a function address in a "void*" rather than a 
> more appropriate typedef, such as :
>  >>>>
>  >>>>      typedef void (*FVoid)(void);
>  >>>
>  >>> dlsym requires that pointer-to-function is compatible with a void*
>  >>>
>  >>
>  >> As I say, I have yet to see a situation where using void* for 
> function pointers was more appropriate than using a function pointer 
> type.  If the OS system calls or standard OS libraries makes it a 
> requirement that function pointers are converted to or from void* for 
> some calls, then of course you need to follow those requirements - it's 
> the people who designed the interfaces that made questionable design 
> choices.
>  >>
>  >
>  > Nope, you're wrong.  You're dead wrong.  The world isn't built on C,
>  > even though here in comp.lang.c we like to pretend it is.
>  >
>  > Several language environments allow function generation on the fly,
>  > these functions need to be garbage collected.  Common Lisp is an
>  > example, therefore comp.lang.lisp is added to this discussion.
>  >
>  > I've also added comp.theory so Mild Shock can comment.
>  >
>  > You will have to go out of your way to make a computer architecture
>  > incompatible with garbage collected and heap allocated binary code,
>  > something I've been told SBCL does internally [1] to create an archi-
>  > tecture that has different
>  >
>  > *  sizeof ( void * ), and
>  > *  sizeof ( void (*)( void ) ),
>  >
>  > and when you do that, I'll just claim you're making a /malicious
>  > computer architecture/ and refuse to use it.
>  >
>  >
>  > [1] I've not looked at the code, but told the garbage collector can
>  > and will at least move the code around, if not collect it.

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

#348344 — New addition to π-WAM is π-WAM Assembly (Re: Johnny Depp prevention [Windows 11 etc...])

Hi,

 >>> How do you break out of a loop,

What Hamelt is to English language, is Hack to
Compiler Construction. The playbook of Hack contains
every drama that a Compiler Construction will face.
In the following we show how we realized Project 6:
Assembler from the Nand to Tetris journey via
a little Prolog DSL.

BTW, roughly or maybe not?
Hack (the book) =
Nand to Tetris (the website) =
Nisan, N. and Schocken, S. (the authors)

See also:

π-WAM Assembly: Comfortable Labels and Goto
https://medium.com/2989/1a11dd512813

Have Fun!

Bye


Mild Shock schrieb:
 > Hi,
 >
 > pi-WAM is compiled to Hack VM. You
 > can realize goto's wherever you want. The
 > Hack VM I am using is a variant of:
 >
 > The Elements of Computing Systems
 > Nisan, N. and Schocken, S. - June 15, 2021, MIT Press
 > https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262539807/the-elements-of-computing-systems/
 >
 > I just combine the 16-bit A and D instructions
 > into single 32-bit instructions. You
 > find a Hack VM interpreter for WebGPU here:
 >
 > 11.4 Giga Lips with a Budget Laptop
 > https://github.com/Jean-Luc-Picard-2021/gigabudget
 >
 > Hava Fun!
 >
 > Bye
 >
 > Mild Shock schrieb:
 >> Hi,
 >>
 >> Using Java sometimes doesn't make me a Java
 >> evangelist. I wouldn't care less about any
 >> programming language, because the idea of
 >>
 >> pi-WAM draws from pi-calculus and WAM. But
 >> since we are in 2026, not many people
 >> might remember pi-calculus:
 >>
 >> Functions as Processes
 >> Robin Milner - June 1989
 >> https://hal.science/docs/00/07/54/05/PDF/RR-1154.pdf
 >>
 >> AI chat bots know pi-calculus from time to
 >> time, while interacting, they spit out
 >> pi-calculus. I have always to tame them,
 >>
 >> and let them cool down, since well, the
 >> pi-calculus doesn't happen directly in the
 >> pi-WAM. Rather in the FFI, which has create
 >>
 >> operations on threads and queue, frankly my
 >> pi-WAM is an extremly crippled, has only
 >> a few primitives from pi-calculus.
 >>
 >> BYe
 >>
 >> Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson schrieb:
 >>> On 29/07/2026 11:25 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
 >>>> On 07/29/2026 08:11 AM, Mild Shock wrote:
 >>>
 >>>>
 >>>> Then, of course, the idea that it naturally employs or "saturates"
 >>>> the processor resources while doing work, in the low-level, yet
 >>>> also has a direct interpretation in higher-level languages, even
 >>>> "higher-level languages without GOTO", has also that it's faster
 >>>> in both machine-organized, compiled, and interpreted environments.
 >>>
 >>> Didn't you say in some other post you've done Java professionally?
 >>>
 >>> How do you break out of a loop, from within a switch () statement
 >>> in Java?  I gather that's simply impossible, because "goto" isn't
 >>> implemented, and the "break" statement doesn't see labels outside
 >>> the switch ()?
 >>>
 >>> Not sure how well that fits within comp.theory, as I haven't sub-
 >>> scribed yet, but perhaps Mild Shock is willing to comment on that
 >>> glaring deficiency in the Java programming language?
 >>>
 >>
 >

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

#348565 — The future Numa Brains will be gorgeous (Was: Train yourself to become a nosomatic AI chirurgeon)

Hi,

Non-uniform memory access (NUMA) is a computer
memory design used in multiprocessing, where the
memory access time depends on the memory location
relative to the processor.

The future Numa Brains will be gorgeous. In like
3-4 years from now, they might have 3.2 TB RAM
on a SOC, by not using HBM but HBF:

High Bandwidth Flash: What Is It Good For?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nTpW52nioI

There might be new profession like nosomatic
AI chirurgeon (I made that up):

Tiny engine, immense model
https://github.com/JustVugg/colibri

The Brain page, Explore: the measured expert
atlas of GLM-5.2 drawn as a cortex. 13,260
characterised experts in ten regions (Python,
SQL, mathematics, poetry, law, Chinese…);

position is measured routing affinity, not a
learned embedding. We might want a brain to
amputate from the Python expert sections, so

that we can write code without a slow
CPython runtime.

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> 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]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.logic

csiph-web