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

Groups > sci.math > #640228 > unrolled thread

😂 "Plog-like" - that should be the official term!

Back to article view | Back to sci.math

Contents

  😂 "Plog-like" - that should be the official term! Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-10-08 01:15 +0200
    How deep seek went bonkers (Was: 😂 "Plog-like" - that should be the official term!) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-10-08 01:21 +0200
      Re: How deep seek went bonkers (Was: 😂 "Plog-like" - that should be the official term!) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-10-07 18:30 -0700
    Declarative farts versus MSI Claw AI+, who would win? (Re: 😂 "Plog-like" - that should be the official term!) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-10-23 14:38 +0200
      Gameified AI Engineers brains blown out [Kurzweil's 2045 Prediction] (Re: Declarative farts versus MSI Claw AI+, who would win?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-10-23 15:23 +0200
        The intelligent Cloud, Fog and Edge is evolving (Re: Gameified AI Engineers brains blown out [Kurzweil's 2045 Prediction]) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-10-24 11:40 +0200
          More Dreams: LLM + Chess = LRM (Re: The intelligent Cloud, Fog and Edge is evolving) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-10-25 12:52 +0200
            Not for Boris the Loris and Julio the Nazi Retared (Re: More Dreams: LLM + Chess = LRM) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-10-25 13:10 +0200
      Logtalks Corleone "olive oil business" [Missed the DOP Bandwagon] (Re: Declarative farts versus MSI Claw AI+) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-04-29 11:32 +0200
        Logtalk is over engineered in a bad sense [Where are the test results] (Re: Logtalks Corleone "olive oil business") Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-04-29 11:55 +0200
          Logtalk just creates its own island of PlUnit (Re: Logtalk is over engineered in a bad sense) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-04-29 12:11 +0200
            The mechanic with the Vacuum Hypothesis (Re: Logtalk just creates its own island of PlUnit) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-04-29 12:53 +0200
              Layoff Tsunami and Defunding Rounds [Burger jobs] (Re: The mechanic with the Vacuum Hypothesis) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-04-29 13:17 +0200
    Arrow Functions can do Existential Quantifier (Re: 😂 "Plog-like" - that should be the official term!) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-06 14:32 +0100
      Resolving Ambiguity in Negation as Failure (Re: Arrow Functions can do Existential Quantifier) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-06 14:33 +0100
        Future Outlook of Logic Programming (Re: Resolving Ambiguity in Negation as Failure) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-06 14:35 +0100
      Re: Arrow Functions can do Existential Quantifier (Re: 😂 "Plog-like" - that should be the official term!) Franz Sneijders <ee@ard.nl> - 2025-11-06 17:44 +0000
        Clueless Moron and Paid Putin Troll (Was: Arrow Functions can do Existential Quantifier) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-06 22:28 +0100
          2.1 Logical variables and equations (Re: Clueless Moron and Paid Putin Troll (Was: Arrow Functions can do Existential Quantifier) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-06 22:35 +0100
            Re: 2.1 Logical variables and equations (Re: Clueless Moron and Paid Putin Troll) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-06 22:42 +0100
              Re: 2.1 Logical variables and equations (Re: Clueless Moron and Paid Putin Troll) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-06 22:48 +0100
          Re: Clueless Moron and Paid Putin Troll (Was: Arrow Functions can do Existential Quantifier) Mariano Amelsvoort <aa@viollr.nl> - 2025-11-06 22:15 +0000
            Re: Clueless Moron and Paid Putin Troll (Was: Arrow Functions can do Existential Quantifier) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-06 23:46 +0100
              What does Type Free mean? (Was: Clueless Moron and Paid Putin Troll) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-06 23:54 +0100
        A noiseless patient Spider is a Pussy Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-07 00:03 +0100
          Re: A noiseless patient Spider is a Pussy Jackie Romijnders <jirke@jecjr.nl> - 2025-11-07 00:01 +0000
        Horn uses Conditional / Clark uses Biconditional (Was: The quantifer ∃ is just the Combinator K (Schönfinkels C)?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-09 13:05 +0100
          CET is also needed (Was: Horn uses Conditional / Clark uses Biconditional) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-09 13:08 +0100
            Re: CET is also needed (Was: Horn uses Conditional / Clark uses Biconditional) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-11-09 08:13 -0800
              You have to check Feferman OST [Paradox Hunting] (Was: CET is also needed) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-09 19:57 +0100
                Prolog semantics is 3-valued or intuitionistic [Feferman prefers partial logic] (Was: You have to check Feferman OST [Paradox Hunting]) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-09 20:11 +0100
                  In Prolog you don't need the down arrow t↓ (Was: Prolog semantics is 3-valued or intuitionistic) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-09 20:16 +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 00:41 +0200
        Testing NVIDIA A10G / XVM Engine v10.2.4 (Permion Federal AI) (Re: Prolog PIP-0110: Its a Floating-Point Multiverse?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-04-29 02:15 +0200
          This could be a serious security vulnerability (Re: Testing NVIDIA A10G / XVM Engine v10.2.4) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-04-29 02:38 +0200
            Re: This could be a serious security vulnerability (Re: Testing NVIDIA A10G / XVM Engine v10.2.4) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-28 18:07 -0700
              Logtalk big time salami slicing [For "Whales" (ultra-high rollers)?] (Was: This could be a serious security vulnerability) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-04-29 11:20 +0200
                Re: Logtalk big time salami slicing [For "Whales" (ultra-high rollers)?] (Was: This could be a serious security vulnerability) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-30 09:13 -0700
        format/3 that does not have some Spaghetti logic (Re: Prolog PIP-0110: Its a Floating-Point Multiverse?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-04-30 17:51 +0200
          Re: format/3 that does not have some Spaghetti logic (Re: Prolog PIP-0110: Its a Floating-Point Multiverse?) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-30 09:11 -0700
    2025 Obituary: Skew Confluence (aka “Stews” 😆) (Re: 😂 "Plog-like" - that should be the official term!) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-07 01:40 +0100
      Backdoor Monkeys from Eternal September (Re: 2025 Obituary: Skew Confluence (aka “Stews” 😆)) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-07 10:16 +0100
        From Vibe-Coding to Vibe-Sniffing (Re: Backdoor Monkeys from Eternal September) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-07 11:08 +0100
      From Feferman to Peyton Jones, no luck with ∃ (Re: 2025 Obituary: Skew Confluence (aka “Stews” 😆)) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-08 20:35 +0100
        The quantifer ∃ is just the Combinator K (Schönfinkels C)? (Re: From Feferman to Peyton Jones, no luck with ∃) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-08 21:25 +0100
    Not Ross Finlayson: Pioneers Cliff B. Jones (Was: 😂 "Plog-like" - that should be the official term!) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-09 21:16 +0100

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#640604 — 2025 Obituary: Skew Confluence (aka “Stews” 😆) (Re: 😂 "Plog-like" - that should be the official term!)

In halls of Cambridge, where catnip sways,
Sat pioneers lost in existential haze.
“Here lies a term!” they cried, “both bound and free,
A bag of possibilities, as far as we see.”

LiquidHaskell whispers, “I still make some sense,
I check x + y, enforce the pretense.
But only 1% — the rest, pure ado,
Existentials and predicates, I haven’t a clue.”

Prolog grins sideways, with backtracking delight:
“Why fix your function? Let each path take flight!
X and Y and Z — all three may roam,
I’ll find a solution, or many, for home.”

Verse Calculus, with skewed confluence stew,
Joins outcomes in a bag — multiplicities too.
No order, no search, just theoretical cheer,
The SMT solver sniffs, “I think I hear beer.”

Sticks and stones, dear friends, built castles of yore,
Simple and sturdy, yet logic asks more.
Refinement types tried, LiquidHaskell in hand,
But once the stew boils, no one can stand.

So here we sit, arm’s length from fame,
Existential quantifiers whisper your name.
A mockery? Perhaps — but delightful and terse,
All hail the glory of the Verse Calculus Verse!

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]

#640606 — Backdoor Monkeys from Eternal September (Re: 2025 Obituary: Skew Confluence (aka “Stews” 😆))

Hi,

Thats why open source slowly becomes a failure.
Because it is full of nickname shape shifters,
that hide behind anonymity. SWI-Prolog is no

exception. A bunch of anonymous crack heads.
Its not some Script Kiddies. They are basically
mafia hackers. And if you have some high CPU

process that doesn't automatically go away,
you possibly got a backdoor via an opensource project.
Sovereign Tech Fund (STF) will not help, since

they will shy away from loosing their anonymity.
And after all the mafia hackers are also well
endowed, have their own funding.

Bye

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

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

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

Mild Shock schrieb:
> 
> In halls of Cambridge, where catnip sways,
> Sat pioneers lost in existential haze.
> “Here lies a term!” they cried, “both bound and free,
> A bag of possibilities, as far as we see.”
> 
> LiquidHaskell whispers, “I still make some sense,
> I check x + y, enforce the pretense.
> But only 1% — the rest, pure ado,
> Existentials and predicates, I haven’t a clue.”
> 
> Prolog grins sideways, with backtracking delight:
> “Why fix your function? Let each path take flight!
> X and Y and Z — all three may roam,
> I’ll find a solution, or many, for home.”
> 
> Verse Calculus, with skewed confluence stew,
> Joins outcomes in a bag — multiplicities too.
> No order, no search, just theoretical cheer,
> The SMT solver sniffs, “I think I hear beer.”
> 
> Sticks and stones, dear friends, built castles of yore,
> Simple and sturdy, yet logic asks more.
> Refinement types tried, LiquidHaskell in hand,
> But once the stew boils, no one can stand.
> 
> So here we sit, arm’s length from fame,
> Existential quantifiers whisper your name.
> A mockery? Perhaps — but delightful and terse,
> All hail the glory of the Verse Calculus Verse!
> 
> 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]

#640607 — From Vibe-Coding to Vibe-Sniffing (Re: Backdoor Monkeys from Eternal September)

Hi,

Ok the idea is trivial. Vibecoding is pair
programming, with an AI counterpart. But what
is Vibesniffing? Ok, now we finally hit the

critique expert system domain. First study this:

Mondrian Code Review On The Web
Google Tech Talks - Guido van Rossum
November 30, 2006
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMql3Di4Kgc

Vibesniffing would be with an AI counterpart. Like
AI Gerrit etc.. Doesn’t look like LiquidHaskell
has made it an imprint here? ChatGPT thinks since

LiquidHaskell is not made for "how code feels".
I strongly oppose to this view. Code review
could be inherently fuzzy, since most

software evolves through:

- Imperfect requirements
- Imperfect code
- Iterative refinement
- Etc.. etc..

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> Thats why open source slowly becomes a failure.
> Because it is full of nickname shape shifters,
> that hide behind anonymity. SWI-Prolog is no
> 
> exception. A bunch of anonymous crack heads.
> Its not some Script Kiddies. They are basically
> mafia hackers. And if you have some high CPU
> 
> process that doesn't automatically go away,
> you possibly got a backdoor via an opensource project.
> Sovereign Tech Fund (STF) will not help, since
> 
> they will shy away from loosing their anonymity.
> And after all the mafia hackers are also well
> endowed, have their own funding.
> 
> Bye
> 
> ------------------ cut here ----------------
> 
> 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
> 
> ------------------ cut here ----------------
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>
>> In halls of Cambridge, where catnip sways,
>> Sat pioneers lost in existential haze.
>> “Here lies a term!” they cried, “both bound and free,
>> A bag of possibilities, as far as we see.”
>>
>> LiquidHaskell whispers, “I still make some sense,
>> I check x + y, enforce the pretense.
>> But only 1% — the rest, pure ado,
>> Existentials and predicates, I haven’t a clue.”
>>
>> Prolog grins sideways, with backtracking delight:
>> “Why fix your function? Let each path take flight!
>> X and Y and Z — all three may roam,
>> I’ll find a solution, or many, for home.”
>>
>> Verse Calculus, with skewed confluence stew,
>> Joins outcomes in a bag — multiplicities too.
>> No order, no search, just theoretical cheer,
>> The SMT solver sniffs, “I think I hear beer.”
>>
>> Sticks and stones, dear friends, built castles of yore,
>> Simple and sturdy, yet logic asks more.
>> Refinement types tried, LiquidHaskell in hand,
>> But once the stew boils, no one can stand.
>>
>> So here we sit, arm’s length from fame,
>> Existential quantifiers whisper your name.
>> A mockery? Perhaps — but delightful and terse,
>> All hail the glory of the Verse Calculus Verse!
>>
>> 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]

#640616 — From Feferman to Peyton Jones, no luck with ∃ (Re: 2025 Obituary: Skew Confluence (aka “Stews” 😆))

Hi,

Now this is an interesting find. It seems
not only the Verse Calculus by Peyton Jones
hit a wall with existential quantifier ∃.

Especially the type free case. Its like in
Rossy Boys Russell thing, people are not
anymore trained to think about "individuals",

the are more bothered by "bags", because this
is what the Antinomies of the formal revolution
tought us. But the formal revolution has also

some nice easter eggs, like Fefermans OST
("Operational Set Theory"), an early form of
Predicte Abstraction. With each formula A is

associated a term t_A such that:

     ∀x[A(x) <=> t_A(x) = tt]

https://math.stanford.edu/~feferman/papers/OperationalST-I.pdf

The nice thing about the t_A, its a term,
possibly a open or closed term, depending
on whether there are parameters, and thats

what I am now doing for Arrow Functions, when
the Prolog systems compiles 0rReference(P1,..,Pk),
its basically a term, an individual, that

later gets called by call/n, which makes the
translation for individual to proposition.

Bye

P.S.: But somehow Feferman shyed away from
definition the unbounded existential quantifier
as a projection, there is a easy geometric

intution, and every SQL database can do it.
Instead he falls back to some Hilber Epsilon
analogue such as:

Given A(x) = ∃yB(x, y) and t_B for B(x, y);
then we can take t_A = λx.t_Bx(C(λyt_Bxy)),
using the general choice operator C.

https://math.stanford.edu/~feferman/papers/OperationalST-I.pdf

Funny!


Mild Shock schrieb:
> 
> In halls of Cambridge, where catnip sways,
> Sat pioneers lost in existential haze.
> “Here lies a term!” they cried, “both bound and free,
> A bag of possibilities, as far as we see.”
> 
> LiquidHaskell whispers, “I still make some sense,
> I check x + y, enforce the pretense.
> But only 1% — the rest, pure ado,
> Existentials and predicates, I haven’t a clue.”
> 
> Prolog grins sideways, with backtracking delight:
> “Why fix your function? Let each path take flight!
> X and Y and Z — all three may roam,
> I’ll find a solution, or many, for home.”
> 
> Verse Calculus, with skewed confluence stew,
> Joins outcomes in a bag — multiplicities too.
> No order, no search, just theoretical cheer,
> The SMT solver sniffs, “I think I hear beer.”
> 
> Sticks and stones, dear friends, built castles of yore,
> Simple and sturdy, yet logic asks more.
> Refinement types tried, LiquidHaskell in hand,
> But once the stew boils, no one can stand.
> 
> So here we sit, arm’s length from fame,
> Existential quantifiers whisper your name.
> A mockery? Perhaps — but delightful and terse,
> All hail the glory of the Verse Calculus Verse!
> 
> 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]

#640619 — The quantifer ∃ is just the Combinator K (Schönfinkels C)? (Re: From Feferman to Peyton Jones, no luck with ∃)

Hi,

Lets say we have an ost term t_A for
some sets of pairs such that:

   t_A(x,y) = tt <=> A(x,y)

Question is what is the term t_B for:

   B(x) <=> ∃y A(x,y)

In the Arrow Functions to Horn Clause
translation. The existential quantifier
is a feature of the Clark Completion.

In terms of Cabezas notion:

   t_B = { ''(x) :- t_a(x,y) }

Bye

P.S.: Why does it remind me of the
K Combinator? Well we have:

∃y t_B(K(x,y)) = ∃y t_A(x,y)

Not sure whether this is useful.
Although the above is true because the
combinator K is defined as Kxy = x,

it can be quite misleading, since
this here does not necessarely hold:

/* Not necessarely */
{ y | t_B(K(x,y)) } = { y | t_A(x,y) }

So if Feferman had the empty set, he could
also check for inhabitation, and bootstrap
existential quantifier via parameterized bags:

t_B(x) = ( { y | t_A(x,y) } =/= {} )

But we don't like bags here..

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> Now this is an interesting find. It seems
> not only the Verse Calculus by Peyton Jones
> hit a wall with existential quantifier ∃.
> 
> Especially the type free case. Its like in
> Rossy Boys Russell thing, people are not
> anymore trained to think about "individuals",
> 
> the are more bothered by "bags", because this
> is what the Antinomies of the formal revolution
> tought us. But the formal revolution has also
> 
> some nice easter eggs, like Fefermans OST
> ("Operational Set Theory"), an early form of
> Predicte Abstraction. With each formula A is
> 
> associated a term t_A such that:
> 
>      ∀x[A(x) <=> t_A(x) = tt]
> 
> https://math.stanford.edu/~feferman/papers/OperationalST-I.pdf
> 
> The nice thing about the t_A, its a term,
> possibly a open or closed term, depending
> on whether there are parameters, and thats
> 
> what I am now doing for Arrow Functions, when
> the Prolog systems compiles 0rReference(P1,..,Pk),
> its basically a term, an individual, that
> 
> later gets called by call/n, which makes the
> translation for individual to proposition.
> 
> Bye
> 
> P.S.: But somehow Feferman shyed away from
> definition the unbounded existential quantifier
> as a projection, there is a easy geometric
> 
> intution, and every SQL database can do it.
> Instead he falls back to some Hilber Epsilon
> analogue such as:
> 
> Given A(x) = ∃yB(x, y) and t_B for B(x, y);
> then we can take t_A = λx.t_Bx(C(λyt_Bxy)),
> using the general choice operator C.
> 
> https://math.stanford.edu/~feferman/papers/OperationalST-I.pdf
> 
> Funny!
> 
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>
>> In halls of Cambridge, where catnip sways,
>> Sat pioneers lost in existential haze.
>> “Here lies a term!” they cried, “both bound and free,
>> A bag of possibilities, as far as we see.”
>>
>> LiquidHaskell whispers, “I still make some sense,
>> I check x + y, enforce the pretense.
>> But only 1% — the rest, pure ado,
>> Existentials and predicates, I haven’t a clue.”
>>
>> Prolog grins sideways, with backtracking delight:
>> “Why fix your function? Let each path take flight!
>> X and Y and Z — all three may roam,
>> I’ll find a solution, or many, for home.”
>>
>> Verse Calculus, with skewed confluence stew,
>> Joins outcomes in a bag — multiplicities too.
>> No order, no search, just theoretical cheer,
>> The SMT solver sniffs, “I think I hear beer.”
>>
>> Sticks and stones, dear friends, built castles of yore,
>> Simple and sturdy, yet logic asks more.
>> Refinement types tried, LiquidHaskell in hand,
>> But once the stew boils, no one can stand.
>>
>> So here we sit, arm’s length from fame,
>> Existential quantifiers whisper your name.
>> A mockery? Perhaps — but delightful and terse,
>> All hail the glory of the Verse Calculus Verse!
>>
>> 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]

#640631 — Not Ross Finlayson: Pioneers Cliff B. Jones (Was: 😂 "Plog-like" - that should be the official term!)

Hi,

Since LiquidHaskell, VerseCalculus, etc.. have
the tasted of reinventing the wheel, and still
gloriously failing, I will start a series of

Pioneers of Program Formalization, and begin
with Cliff B. Jones (born 1 June 1944) is a British
computer scientist. This piece looks a little

archaic, but is full of funny examples:

4.1.2 Examples
Basic statements:
a := p+q
goto Naples
START:CONTINUE:W := 7.993

A formal Definition of Algol 60
August 1972 - Cliff B. Jones et al.
http://homepages.cs.ncl.ac.uk/cliff.jones/publications/Other-TRs/TR12.105.pdf

This post is especially a donation to Ross Finlayson,
who still is seeking consistent foundationalism,
as if Russell had written the Letter to Frege,

just yesterday, while a computer program might
simply goto Naples.

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] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | sci.math

csiph-web