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

Groups > sci.math > #647435

I think Erlang is completely dead. And I repeat it. (Re: From short-cut parallelism to true parallelism [π-WAM Musings])

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

Hi,

 > has alreay the meaning of Prolog REPL without
 > any actors. Moslikely its a strange view of
 > having a WASM somewhere? That does something
 > for you? I am really clueless what “toplevel”
 > should mean.

I think Erlang is completely dead. And I repeat it.
What you need to do is go back to WAM. Also state
charts are dead, WAM has switch instructions, it
can perfectly do state charts. Scryer Prolog

made some state chart tests:

Backtracking DCG vs DFA vs Rational Tree Automaton
https://github.com/mthom/scryer-prolog/discussions/3433https://github.com/mthom/scryer-prolog/discussions/3433#discussioncomment-18138834

What you need to investigate how SWI Prolog
can become again a WAM Prolog that can generate
WAM code. And that actors can also exchange
binary WAM code.

And spawn/1 will have a parameter to create
1000 actors or more instantly. And most of all
don’t use the word “actor” anymore, use the
word “agent”. Disclaimer: Of course

WAM is not the only option here. But in as
far, it seems am not the only one embracing GPU
with my π-WAM for Dogelog Player. Some big
companies like Palantir use

GPU for search .filter and aggregation
.group_by / .agg. Would be nice if one could
write Prolog, and ship it to a GPU ? What do
you think, you are at the source of actor

thinking, and that your brought state charts
into play makes you destined to have a broad
horizon that is needed to grok some things related
to the AI Boom which have nothing to do with LLM:

     result = (
         lf.with_columns(
             (pl.col("a") * pl.col("b")).alias("product"),
             (pl.col("a").pow(2) + pl.col("b").pow(2)).sqrt().alias("norm"),
         )
         .group_by("category")
         .agg(
             pl.col("product").sum().alias("total_product"),
             pl.col("norm").mean().alias("mean_norm"),
             pl.len().alias("n"),
         )
         .sort("total_product", descending=True)
     )
https://www.palantir.com/docs/foundry/transforms-python/advanced-compute#gpu-accelerated-polars-with-cudf

The speedup for a NIVIDIA B200 is amazing:

https://docs.rapids.ai/api/cudf/stable/cudf_polars/

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
 > Hi,
 >
 > The word Musings has a totally new meaning:
 >
 > Torbjörn Lager wrote:
 >  > When
 >  >
 >  > call(Goal), Self ! Pid-Goal
 >  >
 >  > succeeds, that top-level goal has completed
 >  > and the actor terminates successfully.
 >
 > Ok, I see. I thought it will be automatically
 > redone, and thus rapid fire multiple solutions.
 > So you have already hardwired a once/1 semantic
 > into your spawn/3, in that the spawn/3 goal argument
 >
 > when executed, is onced, only looking at its EXIT
 > and FAIL port, not calling once more its REDO port.
 > This also means that both parallel/1 and
 > first_solution/1 have a short-cut AND
 >
 > respective OR semantic:
 >
 > /* AND-parallelism with short-cut */
 > parallel([G1,..,Gn])   <=>   once(G1), .., once(G2)
 >
 > /* OR-parallelism with short-cut */
 > first_solution([G1,..,Gn])   <=>   once(G1); ..; once(G2)
 >
 > The short-cut is in that parallel/1 can stop
 > at the first failure, and that first_solution/1
 > can stop at the first success. I wonder whether
 > Web Prolog Trinity offers true AND-parallelism or
 >
 > true OR-parallelism without a short-cut. Having
 > such constructs could be interesting for problem
 > solving and is often used parallel search. For
 > example SICStus Prolog offers, or offered, true
 >
 > OR-parallelism in its Multi-sequential Prolog
 > engines (Muse) extension, from the SICS experiments
 > in the 1990s with the BNN Butterfly supercomputer
 > from the 1980s:
 >
 > yes
 > | ?- muse_flag(num_workers,_,5).
 > | ?- run.
 > 724 solutions in 2.760 seconds.
 >
 > yes
 > | ?- muse_flag(num_workers,_,1).
 > | ?- run.
 > 724 solutions in 10.400 seconds.
 >
 > https://sicstus.sics.se/sicstus/docs/3.7.1/html/sicstus_6.html
 >
 > The intervention for true OR-paralleism is usually
 > at rule choice points. So when you have a set
 > of rules, like for example in the case of
 > the select/3 predicate:
 >
 > select([X|Xs], Xs, X).
 > select([Y|Ys], [Y|Zs], X) :- select(Ys, Zs, X).
 >
 > You execute it as:
 >
 > select(X, Y, Z) :-
 >      muse([select1(X,Y,Z), select2(X,Y,Z)]).
 >
 > select1([X|Xs], Xs, X).
 > select2([Y|Ys], [Y|Zs], X) :- select(Ys, Zs, X).
 >
 > Where the muse meta predicate has true OR parallelism:
 >
 > muse([G1,..,Gn])    <=>    G1 | .. | Gn
 >
 > Bye
 >
 > See also:
 >
 > The muse approach to Or-parallel prolog
 > https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01407834
 >
 > BBN Butterfly
 > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBN_Butterfly
 >
 > P.S.: Maybe this explains my Freundlian slip when
 > I expected your parallel/1 to be some OR-parallelism,
 > while it is some AND-parallism. The true OR-parallelism
 >
 > can be mathematically formalized in logic via
 > non-determinism and π-calculus:
 >
 > π-calculus
 > https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/pi-calculus
 >
 > You even don’t need actor mailboxes, only channel objects.
 >

Back to sci.math | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

TSMC's 2nm (N2) node and the 7 GHz target (Was: Creating a "European CMOS 2.0 Army") Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-07-14 14:11 +0200
  Re: TSMC's 2nm (N2) node and the 7 GHz target (Was: Creating a "European CMOS 2.0 Army") Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 08:49 -0700
  Re: TSMC's 2nm (N2) node and the 7 GHz target (Was: Creating a "European CMOS 2.0 Army") Keyler Babaskin <nb@erbbiia.ru> - 2026-07-14 16:55 +0000
  pi-WAM is just like Laika3, the first Dog on Mars (Re: TSMC's 2nm (N2) node and the 7 GHz target) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-07-15 18:11 +0200
    So memory bandwidth is no issue at all (Re: pi-WAM is just like Laika3, the first Dog on Mars) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-07-15 18:35 +0200
      Re: So memory bandwidth is no issue at all (Re: pi-WAM is just like Laika3, the first Dog on Mars) Dominique Belorussov <os@ssdoi.ru> - 2026-07-16 13:44 +0000
        For iGPU which acts as a APU RAM is shared (Was: So memory bandwidth is no issue at all) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-07-16 17:07 +0200
          Re: For iGPU which acts as a APU RAM is shared (Was: So memory bandwidth is no issue at all) Bobauk Modenov <bo@modoadb.ru> - 2026-07-16 17:45 +0000
            Village Idiot wants 8088 back [Puting Troll] (Was: For iGPU which acts as a APU RAM is shared) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-07-16 23:02 +0200
              VT100 25 x 80 terminal = 2000 Bytes (Was: Village Idiot wants 8088 back [Puting Troll]) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-07-16 23:08 +0200
    From short-cut parallelism to true parallelism [π-WAM Musings] (Was: pi-WAM is just like Laika3, the first Dog on Mars) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-08-27 17:56 +0200
      Re: From short-cut parallelism to true parallelism [π-WAM Musings] (Was: pi-WAM is just like Laika3, the first Dog on Mars) Serafin Zavrajnov <naj@varrjn.ru> - 2026-08-27 20:57 +0000
      Re: From short-cut parallelism to true parallelism [π-WAM Musings] (Was: pi-WAM is just like Laika3, the first Dog on Mars) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-08-29 03:09 +0200
      I think Erlang is completely dead. And I repeat it. (Re: From short-cut parallelism to true parallelism [π-WAM Musings]) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-08-29 03:10 +0200
        Re: I think Erlang is completely dead. And I repeat it. (Re: From short-cut parallelism to true parallelism [π-WAM Musings]) Bonny Tubinov <oioo@yubby.ru> - 2026-08-30 10:34 +0000

csiph-web