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 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#640228 — 😂 "Plog-like" - that should be the official term!

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]

#640229 — How deep seek went bonkers (Was: 😂 "Plog-like" - that should be the official term!)

Hi,

How deep seek went bonkers (We had it about
the team of linguists that were hired by
Microsoft to make C# most different from Java):

- Deek Seek: playing 4D chess while
      everyone else was playing checkers

- Me: I think they play alian chess checkers

- Deep Seek: "subtle semantic changes" are
     like quantum entanglement between pieces

- Me: Which even exists:
    https://rivo.itch.io/chess-vs-zombie-checkers

LoL

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]

#640232 — Re: How deep seek went bonkers (Was: 😂 "Plog-like" - that should be the official term!)

On 10/7/2025 4:21 PM, Mild Shock wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> How deep seek went bonkers (We had it about
> the team of linguists that were hired by
> Microsoft to make C# most different from Java):
> 
> - Deek Seek: playing 4D chess while
>       everyone else was playing checkers
> 
> - Me: I think they play alian chess checkers
> 
> - Deep Seek: "subtle semantic changes" are
>      like quantum entanglement between pieces
> 
> - Me: Which even exists:
>     https://rivo.itch.io/chess-vs-zombie-checkers
> 
> LoL
> 
> 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! 🎭
> 

Do you like Q#?

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/quantum/qsharp-overview

;^)

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

#640449 — Declarative farts versus MSI Claw AI+, who would win? (Re: 😂 "Plog-like" - that should be the official term!)

Hi,

Prolog and Haskell dream the same stupid
old farts symbolic only dream. With the
power of giants such as Simon Peyton Jones

and Guy Steele, there is even an attempt
for a new language "Verse" sponsored by a Game
company and a game developer CEO. Wikipedia

wants to delete the article, for lack of
notability:

Verse (programming language)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verse_%28programming_language%29

But the AI inflection point also hits the
game industry right now. Intel Meteor Lake
seems to be more a blown up Smartphone CPU

than a shrinked down Desktop CPU:

MSI Claw 8 AI+
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=preitwEqEUA

The CPU has RTX (Ray Trancing) and AI Accelerator
(Intels take on an NPU). It seems it can run
XBOX games. But it opens a door to a new breed

of games. Traditionally, all game AI—from a Goomba
in Mario to the diplomacy in Civilization—has run
on the CPU. Developers had to be very frugal

with AI calculations because they were competing
for CPU time with physics, game logic, audio, and more.
In Modern "Simulation-Heavy" Games, The AI for every

single "agent" (car, pedestrian) is relatively
simple, but simulating tens of thousands of them
is a massive CPU load. The future might see

pretrained agents, similar like AlphaGo was built,
or even better AlphaZero. It moves game AI from
being a scripted actor to being a genuine opponent.

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]

#640450 — Gameified AI Engineers brains blown out [Kurzweil's 2045 Prediction] (Re: Declarative farts versus MSI Claw AI+, who would win?)

Hi,

I made an experiment a few days ago with a
feedback loop, Java to C#, then error codes into
a chatbot, and then back to Java correcting the code.

It was extremly draining. I had to stop. Was
sleeping for 3 days couldn't do anything. Not
sure what cognitive science says whether humans

can do that over a long period. The best ist when
you learn to forget everything you did during the day.
Have everything in the repository, and just move on.

Forget and move on. Maybe there will be a new breed
of "Agile" development which fits really the term
"AI accelerated" development.

Bye

P.S.: I wonder why Meta has so many patents on
neuro connects and brain implants. Can we change our
brain to increase the bandwidth? What will be the future?

"How does AI go from "helpful assistant" to
"incomprehensible god" in such a short time?"
Singularity: Ray Kurzweil's 2045 Prediction
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIcqDwWvIK0

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> Prolog and Haskell dream the same stupid
> old farts symbolic only dream. With the
> power of giants such as Simon Peyton Jones
> 
> and Guy Steele, there is even an attempt
> for a new language "Verse" sponsored by a Game
> company and a game developer CEO. Wikipedia
> 
> wants to delete the article, for lack of
> notability:
> 
> Verse (programming language)
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verse_%28programming_language%29
> 
> But the AI inflection point also hits the
> game industry right now. Intel Meteor Lake
> seems to be more a blown up Smartphone CPU
> 
> than a shrinked down Desktop CPU:
> 
> MSI Claw 8 AI+
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=preitwEqEUA
> 
> The CPU has RTX (Ray Trancing) and AI Accelerator
> (Intels take on an NPU). It seems it can run
> XBOX games. But it opens a door to a new breed
> 
> of games. Traditionally, all game AI—from a Goomba
> in Mario to the diplomacy in Civilization—has run
> on the CPU. Developers had to be very frugal
> 
> with AI calculations because they were competing
> for CPU time with physics, game logic, audio, and more.
> In Modern "Simulation-Heavy" Games, The AI for every
> 
> single "agent" (car, pedestrian) is relatively
> simple, but simulating tens of thousands of them
> is a massive CPU load. The future might see
> 
> pretrained agents, similar like AlphaGo was built,
> or even better AlphaZero. It moves game AI from
> being a scripted actor to being a genuine opponent.
> 
> 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]

#640492 — The intelligent Cloud, Fog and Edge is evolving (Re: Gameified AI Engineers brains blown out [Kurzweil's 2045 Prediction])

Hi,

Its tricky. Now I am getting back to the core question,
who  has an advantage in the AI race, AMD, Intel or
NVIDIA. Why did OpenAI choose AMD?

If one digs deeper and asks whether there exists
virtualization not only for GPUs, but also for
TPUs (Tensor CPUs) or NPUs (Neural CPUs).

This is all still very much in the dark. Some companies
even don't publish their APIs yet. For GPUs AMD
has MxGPU, is a PCIe-based GPU virtualization

technology using SR-IOV. But for NPUs AMD could
use FPGA fabric, which they acquired through Xilinx
in 2022. Quite amazing to watch what problems and

solutions cloud computing is currently facing.

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> I made an experiment a few days ago with a
> feedback loop, Java to C#, then error codes into
> a chatbot, and then back to Java correcting the code.
> 
> It was extremly draining. I had to stop. Was
> sleeping for 3 days couldn't do anything. Not
> sure what cognitive science says whether humans
> 
> can do that over a long period. The best ist when
> you learn to forget everything you did during the day.
> Have everything in the repository, and just move on.
> 
> Forget and move on. Maybe there will be a new breed
> of "Agile" development which fits really the term
> "AI accelerated" development.
> 
> Bye
> 
> P.S.: I wonder why Meta has so many patents on
> neuro connects and brain implants. Can we change our
> brain to increase the bandwidth? What will be the future?
> 
> "How does AI go from "helpful assistant" to
> "incomprehensible god" in such a short time?"
> Singularity: Ray Kurzweil's 2045 Prediction
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIcqDwWvIK0
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Prolog and Haskell dream the same stupid
>> old farts symbolic only dream. With the
>> power of giants such as Simon Peyton Jones
>>
>> and Guy Steele, there is even an attempt
>> for a new language "Verse" sponsored by a Game
>> company and a game developer CEO. Wikipedia
>>
>> wants to delete the article, for lack of
>> notability:
>>
>> Verse (programming language)
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verse_%28programming_language%29
>>
>> But the AI inflection point also hits the
>> game industry right now. Intel Meteor Lake
>> seems to be more a blown up Smartphone CPU
>>
>> than a shrinked down Desktop CPU:
>>
>> MSI Claw 8 AI+
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=preitwEqEUA
>>
>> The CPU has RTX (Ray Trancing) and AI Accelerator
>> (Intels take on an NPU). It seems it can run
>> XBOX games. But it opens a door to a new breed
>>
>> of games. Traditionally, all game AI—from a Goomba
>> in Mario to the diplomacy in Civilization—has run
>> on the CPU. Developers had to be very frugal
>>
>> with AI calculations because they were competing
>> for CPU time with physics, game logic, audio, and more.
>> In Modern "Simulation-Heavy" Games, The AI for every
>>
>> single "agent" (car, pedestrian) is relatively
>> simple, but simulating tens of thousands of them
>> is a massive CPU load. The future might see
>>
>> pretrained agents, similar like AlphaGo was built,
>> or even better AlphaZero. It moves game AI from
>> being a scripted actor to being a genuine opponent.
>>
>> 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]

#640506 — More Dreams: LLM + Chess = LRM (Re: The intelligent Cloud, Fog and Edge is evolving)

Hi,

How it started:

Sweet dreams are made of this
Who am I to disagree?
I travel the world and the seven seas
Everybody's looking for something
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeMFqkcPYcg

How its going:

Towards Large Reasoning Models
“If there is a severe deficit of language,
there will be severe deficit of thought”
— Noam Chomsky
https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.09686

Bye

P.S.:
LLM = Large Language Model
LRM = Large Reasoning Model

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> Its tricky. Now I am getting back to the core question,
> who  has an advantage in the AI race, AMD, Intel or
> NVIDIA. Why did OpenAI choose AMD?
> 
> If one digs deeper and asks whether there exists
> virtualization not only for GPUs, but also for
> TPUs (Tensor CPUs) or NPUs (Neural CPUs).
> 
> This is all still very much in the dark. Some companies
> even don't publish their APIs yet. For GPUs AMD
> has MxGPU, is a PCIe-based GPU virtualization
> 
> technology using SR-IOV. But for NPUs AMD could
> use FPGA fabric, which they acquired through Xilinx
> in 2022. Quite amazing to watch what problems and
> 
> solutions cloud computing is currently facing.
> 
> Bye

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

#640507 — Not for Boris the Loris and Julio the Nazi Retared (Re: More Dreams: LLM + Chess = LRM)

Hi,

Well the approach is nothing for Boris
the Loris and Julio the Nazi Retared.
They already had their brains blown out,

by simple chess set-up:

Proponent: Kuniaki Mukai, claiming a compare/3
   implementation for rational trees
Opponent: Jan Burse, Using Fuzzy Testing to exhibt
   couter models

So I guess the Prolog community, especially
SWI-Prolog disciples that are payed trolls
by Putin, are not fit at all for LRM?

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> How it started:
> 
> Sweet dreams are made of this
> Who am I to disagree?
> I travel the world and the seven seas
> Everybody's looking for something
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeMFqkcPYcg
> 
> How its going:
> 
> Towards Large Reasoning Models
> “If there is a severe deficit of language,
> there will be severe deficit of thought”
> — Noam Chomsky
> https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.09686
> 
> Bye
> 
> P.S.:
> LLM = Large Language Model
> LRM = Large Reasoning Model
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Its tricky. Now I am getting back to the core question,
>> who  has an advantage in the AI race, AMD, Intel or
>> NVIDIA. Why did OpenAI choose AMD?
>>
>> If one digs deeper and asks whether there exists
>> virtualization not only for GPUs, but also for
>> TPUs (Tensor CPUs) or NPUs (Neural CPUs).
>>
>> This is all still very much in the dark. Some companies
>> even don't publish their APIs yet. For GPUs AMD
>> has MxGPU, is a PCIe-based GPU virtualization
>>
>> technology using SR-IOV. But for NPUs AMD could
>> use FPGA fabric, which they acquired through Xilinx
>> in 2022. Quite amazing to watch what problems and
>>
>> solutions cloud computing is currently facing.
>>
>> Bye

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

#644918 — Logtalks Corleone "olive oil business" [Missed the DOP Bandwagon] (Re: Declarative farts versus MSI Claw AI+)

Hi,

The perfect "olive oil business",
just follow these steps:

Step 1: Avoid the pain of a Prolog vendor
- Start without having a WAM, etc..
   up your sleves

Step 2: Take the easy route of gooey bloath:
- Instead build a nonsense layer on
   top of existing WAMs, etc..

Step 3: Take the easy route of AI winter nonsense:
- Add some 80's Expert System nonsense, oldest
   tricks like a "why?" component or some
   fuzzy truth intervalls.

Step 4:
- Profit!

Bye

P.S.: Logtalk also missed that OOP is dead.
Everybody does now DOP. Data oriented programming.
Less ontology engineering more complex functionality.

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

#644919 — Logtalk is over engineered in a bad sense [Where are the test results] (Re: Logtalks Corleone "olive oil business")

Hi,

Ok, this is fun, I didn't do Logtalk bashing
for a while. But Logtalk is definitively
over engineered in a bad sense.

Logtalk is the opposite of Jazz. Its more like
Jazz player taking valium and becoming a
harmonica player. But the Jazz players are

also less lucky. We now find a s(CASP) grave
yard in logic programming, did the Yale
Shooting problem shoot their foot?

Logtalk features ton of test cases and a ton
of adapters. But hell no, where are the test
results. I didn't find them on GitHub.

Maybe should have a look again.

Bye

P.S.: The test cases  are possibly a do it
yourself service for the Prolog community.
Problem millions of OS-es and still the

idea that a Prolog system is built from
source, so millions of build platforms.
No money or resource left to do a GeekBech.

Too busy with grokking abduction/deduction .

https://www.geekbench.com/

A Geek bench taps into standards like
Vulcan etc.. We even don't have a scripting
standard for Prolog systems itself.

How a Prolog processor starts its work is
left open by the ISO core standard, and
there is no PIP adressing the problem

for a set of common platforms.

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> The perfect "olive oil business",
> just follow these steps:
> 
> Step 1: Avoid the pain of a Prolog vendor
> - Start without having a WAM, etc..
>    up your sleves
> 
> Step 2: Take the easy route of gooey bloath:
> - Instead build a nonsense layer on
>    top of existing WAMs, etc..
> 
> Step 3: Take the easy route of AI winter nonsense:
> - Add some 80's Expert System nonsense, oldest
>    tricks like a "why?" component or some
>    fuzzy truth intervalls.
> 
> Step 4:
> - Profit!
> 
> Bye
> 
> P.S.: Logtalk also missed that OOP is dead.
> Everybody does now DOP. Data oriented programming.
> Less ontology engineering more complex functionality.
> 
> 

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

#644920 — Logtalk just creates its own island of PlUnit (Re: Logtalk is over engineered in a bad sense)

Hi,

Logtalk just creates its own island of PlUnit.
A mixture of bloat combined with bloat, and
on top of it some cherry bloat:

     test(lgt_format_2_tab_table_pip_0110_01, true(Assertion)) :-
         ^^set_text_output(''),
         {format("left~tright", [])},
         ^^text_output_assertion('leftright', Assertion).

Woa! Its not that invoking a clause would be
used, which can succeed and fail. No a truth
value needs to be reified. Many frameworks do

that and then compute an expect (*) style DSL.
Meaning we have suddently two languages, the
Prolog language which can deal with with success

and failure, and then a DSL which will deal
with success and failure. Now put the whole thing
into classes, where a default method needs to

be invoked via (^^)/1 because Logtalk is too
stupid to resolve default methods without the
need to write (^^)/1. It might make sense here,

where its practically a super:

init :-
     assertz(counter(0)),
     ^^init.

But otherwise, why?

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> Ok, this is fun, I didn't do Logtalk bashing
> for a while. But Logtalk is definitively
> over engineered in a bad sense.
> 
> Logtalk is the opposite of Jazz. Its more like
> Jazz player taking valium and becoming a
> harmonica player. But the Jazz players are
> 
> also less lucky. We now find a s(CASP) grave
> yard in logic programming, did the Yale
> Shooting problem shoot their foot?
> 
> Logtalk features ton of test cases and a ton
> of adapters. But hell no, where are the test
> results. I didn't find them on GitHub.
> 
> Maybe should have a look again.
> 
> Bye
> 
> P.S.: The test cases  are possibly a do it
> yourself service for the Prolog community.
> Problem millions of OS-es and still the
> 
> idea that a Prolog system is built from
> source, so millions of build platforms.
> No money or resource left to do a GeekBech.
> 
> Too busy with grokking abduction/deduction .
> 
> https://www.geekbench.com/
> 
> A Geek bench taps into standards like
> Vulcan etc.. We even don't have a scripting
> standard for Prolog systems itself.
> 
> How a Prolog processor starts its work is
> left open by the ISO core standard, and
> there is no PIP adressing the problem
> 
> for a set of common platforms.
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> The perfect "olive oil business",
>> just follow these steps:
>>
>> Step 1: Avoid the pain of a Prolog vendor
>> - Start without having a WAM, etc..
>>    up your sleves
>>
>> Step 2: Take the easy route of gooey bloath:
>> - Instead build a nonsense layer on
>>    top of existing WAMs, etc..
>>
>> Step 3: Take the easy route of AI winter nonsense:
>> - Add some 80's Expert System nonsense, oldest
>>    tricks like a "why?" component or some
>>    fuzzy truth intervalls.
>>
>> Step 4:
>> - Profit!
>>
>> Bye
>>
>> P.S.: Logtalk also missed that OOP is dead.
>> Everybody does now DOP. Data oriented programming.
>> Less ontology engineering more complex functionality.
>>
>>
> 

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

#644921 — The mechanic with the Vacuum Hypothesis (Re: Logtalk just creates its own island of PlUnit)

Hi,

It takes a lot of guts to related SLD failure of
an empty predicate to CWA:

closed-world assumption
The assumption that what cannot be proved
true is false. Therefore, sending a message
corresponding to a declared but not defined
predicate, or calling a declared predicate
with no clauses, fails. But messages or
calls to undeclared predicates generate an error.
https://logtalk.org/handbook/glossary.html#term-closed-world-assumption

I mean all he wants to say is that an empty
predicate doesn't have a throw catchall clause.

Nothing to do with CWA. CWA is a mathematical
concept postulating that from G |/- A we want
to jump to G |-_CWA ~A. Its not that the

predicate in questions would be called with
a negation in front, and that we would really
be interested in a "is false".

Even if SWI has rebranded "fail" into "false"
in the top-level, its still most often
a SLD result, and not a CWA result.

At least the key phrase still uses "fails",
when he writes "calling a declared predicate
with no clauses, fails". It could be worse

if he would really apply the CWA and write
calling a declared predicate with no clauses,
is false". Such a conclusion can only be

detected in logic by querying ~A, while he
still deals with a query A.

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> Logtalk just creates its own island of PlUnit.
> A mixture of bloat combined with bloat, and
> on top of it some cherry bloat:
> 
>      test(lgt_format_2_tab_table_pip_0110_01, true(Assertion)) :-
>          ^^set_text_output(''),
>          {format("left~tright", [])},
>          ^^text_output_assertion('leftright', Assertion).
> 
> Woa! Its not that invoking a clause would be
> used, which can succeed and fail. No a truth
> value needs to be reified. Many frameworks do
> 
> that and then compute an expect (*) style DSL.
> Meaning we have suddently two languages, the
> Prolog language which can deal with with success
> 
> and failure, and then a DSL which will deal
> with success and failure. Now put the whole thing
> into classes, where a default method needs to
> 
> be invoked via (^^)/1 because Logtalk is too
> stupid to resolve default methods without the
> need to write (^^)/1. It might make sense here,
> 
> where its practically a super:
> 
> init :-
>      assertz(counter(0)),
>      ^^init.
> 
> But otherwise, why?
> 
> Bye
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Ok, this is fun, I didn't do Logtalk bashing
>> for a while. But Logtalk is definitively
>> over engineered in a bad sense.
>>
>> Logtalk is the opposite of Jazz. Its more like
>> Jazz player taking valium and becoming a
>> harmonica player. But the Jazz players are
>>
>> also less lucky. We now find a s(CASP) grave
>> yard in logic programming, did the Yale
>> Shooting problem shoot their foot?
>>
>> Logtalk features ton of test cases and a ton
>> of adapters. But hell no, where are the test
>> results. I didn't find them on GitHub.
>>
>> Maybe should have a look again.
>>
>> Bye
>>
>> P.S.: The test cases  are possibly a do it
>> yourself service for the Prolog community.
>> Problem millions of OS-es and still the
>>
>> idea that a Prolog system is built from
>> source, so millions of build platforms.
>> No money or resource left to do a GeekBech.
>>
>> Too busy with grokking abduction/deduction .
>>
>> https://www.geekbench.com/
>>
>> A Geek bench taps into standards like
>> Vulcan etc.. We even don't have a scripting
>> standard for Prolog systems itself.
>>
>> How a Prolog processor starts its work is
>> left open by the ISO core standard, and
>> there is no PIP adressing the problem
>>
>> for a set of common platforms.
>>
>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> The perfect "olive oil business",
>>> just follow these steps:
>>>
>>> Step 1: Avoid the pain of a Prolog vendor
>>> - Start without having a WAM, etc..
>>>    up your sleves
>>>
>>> Step 2: Take the easy route of gooey bloath:
>>> - Instead build a nonsense layer on
>>>    top of existing WAMs, etc..
>>>
>>> Step 3: Take the easy route of AI winter nonsense:
>>> - Add some 80's Expert System nonsense, oldest
>>>    tricks like a "why?" component or some
>>>    fuzzy truth intervalls.
>>>
>>> Step 4:
>>> - Profit!
>>>
>>> Bye
>>>
>>> P.S.: Logtalk also missed that OOP is dead.
>>> Everybody does now DOP. Data oriented programming.
>>> Less ontology engineering more complex functionality.
>>>
>>>
>>
> 

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

#644922 — Layoff Tsunami and Defunding Rounds [Burger jobs] (Re: The mechanic with the Vacuum Hypothesis)

Hi,

Ha Ha, the AI Boom leaves its traces:

The theme will be “Reimagining Resilience:
Empowering Local Communities in a Time of
Uncertain Federal Support” A follow-on event
will be held at the Pentagon from April 15th-16th, 2026.
https://star-tides.net/

Don't be afraid, of the sustained Layoff
Tsunamis and Defunding Rounds. There
are a lot of Burger jobs still around,

Sandwich artist is a respected job.

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> It takes a lot of guts to related SLD failure of
> an empty predicate to CWA:
> 
> closed-world assumption
> The assumption that what cannot be proved
> true is false. Therefore, sending a message
> corresponding to a declared but not defined
> predicate, or calling a declared predicate
> with no clauses, fails. But messages or
> calls to undeclared predicates generate an error.
> https://logtalk.org/handbook/glossary.html#term-closed-world-assumption
> 
> I mean all he wants to say is that an empty
> predicate doesn't have a throw catchall clause.
> 
> Nothing to do with CWA. CWA is a mathematical
> concept postulating that from G |/- A we want
> to jump to G |-_CWA ~A. Its not that the
> 
> predicate in questions would be called with
> a negation in front, and that we would really
> be interested in a "is false".
> 
> Even if SWI has rebranded "fail" into "false"
> in the top-level, its still most often
> a SLD result, and not a CWA result.
> 
> At least the key phrase still uses "fails",
> when he writes "calling a declared predicate
> with no clauses, fails". It could be worse
> 
> if he would really apply the CWA and write
> calling a declared predicate with no clauses,
> is false". Such a conclusion can only be
> 
> detected in logic by querying ~A, while he
> still deals with a query A.
> 
> Bye
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Logtalk just creates its own island of PlUnit.
>> A mixture of bloat combined with bloat, and
>> on top of it some cherry bloat:
>>
>>      test(lgt_format_2_tab_table_pip_0110_01, true(Assertion)) :-
>>          ^^set_text_output(''),
>>          {format("left~tright", [])},
>>          ^^text_output_assertion('leftright', Assertion).
>>
>> Woa! Its not that invoking a clause would be
>> used, which can succeed and fail. No a truth
>> value needs to be reified. Many frameworks do
>>
>> that and then compute an expect (*) style DSL.
>> Meaning we have suddently two languages, the
>> Prolog language which can deal with with success
>>
>> and failure, and then a DSL which will deal
>> with success and failure. Now put the whole thing
>> into classes, where a default method needs to
>>
>> be invoked via (^^)/1 because Logtalk is too
>> stupid to resolve default methods without the
>> need to write (^^)/1. It might make sense here,
>>
>> where its practically a super:
>>
>> init :-
>>      assertz(counter(0)),
>>      ^^init.
>>
>> But otherwise, why?
>>
>> Bye
>>
>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Ok, this is fun, I didn't do Logtalk bashing
>>> for a while. But Logtalk is definitively
>>> over engineered in a bad sense.
>>>
>>> Logtalk is the opposite of Jazz. Its more like
>>> Jazz player taking valium and becoming a
>>> harmonica player. But the Jazz players are
>>>
>>> also less lucky. We now find a s(CASP) grave
>>> yard in logic programming, did the Yale
>>> Shooting problem shoot their foot?
>>>
>>> Logtalk features ton of test cases and a ton
>>> of adapters. But hell no, where are the test
>>> results. I didn't find them on GitHub.
>>>
>>> Maybe should have a look again.
>>>
>>> Bye
>>>
>>> P.S.: The test cases  are possibly a do it
>>> yourself service for the Prolog community.
>>> Problem millions of OS-es and still the
>>>
>>> idea that a Prolog system is built from
>>> source, so millions of build platforms.
>>> No money or resource left to do a GeekBech.
>>>
>>> Too busy with grokking abduction/deduction .
>>>
>>> https://www.geekbench.com/
>>>
>>> A Geek bench taps into standards like
>>> Vulcan etc.. We even don't have a scripting
>>> standard for Prolog systems itself.
>>>
>>> How a Prolog processor starts its work is
>>> left open by the ISO core standard, and
>>> there is no PIP adressing the problem
>>>
>>> for a set of common platforms.
>>>
>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> The perfect "olive oil business",
>>>> just follow these steps:
>>>>
>>>> Step 1: Avoid the pain of a Prolog vendor
>>>> - Start without having a WAM, etc..
>>>>    up your sleves
>>>>
>>>> Step 2: Take the easy route of gooey bloath:
>>>> - Instead build a nonsense layer on
>>>>    top of existing WAMs, etc..
>>>>
>>>> Step 3: Take the easy route of AI winter nonsense:
>>>> - Add some 80's Expert System nonsense, oldest
>>>>    tricks like a "why?" component or some
>>>>    fuzzy truth intervalls.
>>>>
>>>> Step 4:
>>>> - Profit!
>>>>
>>>> Bye
>>>>
>>>> P.S.: Logtalk also missed that OOP is dead.
>>>> Everybody does now DOP. Data oriented programming.
>>>> Less ontology engineering more complex functionality.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
> 

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

#640589 — Arrow Functions can do Existential Quantifier (Re: 😂 "Plog-like" - that should be the official term!)

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, anna) -> A=1;A=0).
    (call(_LS, bert) -> B=1;B=0),
A = 1, B = 0.

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]

#640590 — Resolving Ambiguity in Negation as Failure (Re: Arrow Functions can do Existential Quantifier)

Hi,

Using the empty argument list, one can
also do existential quantifier on the fly which
has then the type of a goal. Take these additional facts:

people(anna).
people(carlo).
people(bert).

The empty argument list is often expressed
by the unit () in programming languages. SWI-Prolog
has even a syntax for it, we don't have a syntax

for it, so we simply use true as the empty
formal parameter list. Now one can do this
contraption. First without arrow function:

?- findall(X, (people(X), \+ likes(X, _)), L).
L = [bert].

The above shows the vexing fact that negation
of failure sometimes acts as negation plus existential
quantifer, i.e. ¬∃ and not only as negation, i.e. ¬:

?- findall(X, (people(X), \+ (true => Y^likes(X,Y))), L).
L = [bert].

Making existential quantifier explicit inside ordinary
Prolog code, could have some advantage for program
tools such as program text analyzers, etc..

Bye

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, anna) -> A=1;A=0).
>     (call(_LS, bert) -> B=1;B=0),
> A = 1, B = 0.
> 
> 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]

#640591 — Future Outlook of Logic Programming (Re: Resolving Ambiguity in Negation as Failure)

Hi,

But we could also do it with less syntax, and
start supporting (^)/2 goals with exactly the
unit arrow semantics.

One problem of making existential quantifier explicit,
it is not clear which variant is more performant.
But this is currently work in progress, giving

if-then-else and other control constructs inside
a findall/3 an ahead of time compilation treatment.
The ISO core standard defines a dynamic behaviour

based on call/1 for things such as findall/3. But
just like arrow functions, if-then-else can be
also ahead of time compiled, without any meta-predicate

declarations, using a similar type-free approach
as for the arrow functions. But I havent yet fully
understood it. My current inlining of if-then-else

does some mini-scoping. So that it somehow emerges
that the ahead of time compilation of arrow functions
has to be done before the ahead of time compilation

of ubiquitious control constructs. Because the
mini-scoping cannot be computed when the arrow functions
are not yet bracket abstracted, and when the

term_variables/2 might give false positive the same
way that free_variables/3 can give false positives.

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> Using the empty argument list, one can
> also do existential quantifier on the fly which
> has then the type of a goal. Take these additional facts:
> 
> people(anna).
> people(carlo).
> people(bert).
> 
> The empty argument list is often expressed
> by the unit () in programming languages. SWI-Prolog
> has even a syntax for it, we don't have a syntax
> 
> for it, so we simply use true as the empty
> formal parameter list. Now one can do this
> contraption. First without arrow function:
> 
> ?- findall(X, (people(X), \+ likes(X, _)), L).
> L = [bert].
> 
> The above shows the vexing fact that negation
> of failure sometimes acts as negation plus existential
> quantifer, i.e. ¬∃ and not only as negation, i.e. ¬:
> 
> ?- findall(X, (people(X), \+ (true => Y^likes(X,Y))), L).
> L = [bert].
> 
> Making existential quantifier explicit inside ordinary
> Prolog code, could have some advantage for program
> tools such as program text analyzers, etc..
> 
> Bye
> 
> 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, anna) -> A=1;A=0).
>>     (call(_LS, bert) -> B=1;B=0),
>> A = 1, B = 0.
>>
>> 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]

#640593 — Re: Arrow Functions can do Existential Quantifier (Re: 😂 "Plog-like" - that should be the official term!)

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.

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

#640595 — Clueless Moron and Paid Putin Troll (Was: 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 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.
> 

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

#640596 — 2.1 Logical variables and equations (Re: Clueless Moron and Paid Putin Troll (Was: Arrow Functions can do Existential Quantifier)

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 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.
>>
> 

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

#640597 — 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 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.
>>>
>>
> 

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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.math

csiph-web