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

Groups > sci.physics > #896467 > unrolled thread

From Unrusting Blade to Unburning Icarus (Re: The SWI-Prolog community is a circus )

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

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

  From Unrusting Blade to Unburning Icarus (Re: The SWI-Prolog community is a circus ) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-07-27 12:18 +0200

#896467 — From Unrusting Blade to Unburning Icarus (Re: The SWI-Prolog community is a circus )

Hi,

Now the SWI community has create a new circus
example, probably AI generated by a prompt
enginerring, add a silly greeting line:

A: Thank you so much for sharing information
    about the LogicBiz V.2.0 project!
B: Thank you so much for your kind words
    and encouragement!
A: Thank you so much for your honest and
    heartfelt reply!
B: Thank you so much for your heartwarming
    and supportive reply!
A: Thank you for your openness!
B: Thank you for your valuable feedback!
A: Thank you for sharing such a detailed
    and impressive technical breakdown!
B: Thank you for the detailed breakdown!
A: Thank you for the fascinating perspective!
https://swi-prolog.discourse.group/t/the-unrusting-blade-an-offline-first-logicbiz-v-2-0-powered-by-swi-prolog-sqlcipher-reply-01/9752

The pinacle of their "logic programming":

"Barcode Scanners & EDC inputs: Barcode scanners
inherently act as Human Interface Devices (HID) —
meaning they just inject keyboard strokes into
the active field. Since my input terminal is
already standard web HTML, a physical USB/Bluetooth
scanner works instantly out-of-the-box without
needing complex C/C++ bindings or custom drivers
in Prolog. The same applies to manually
entering EDC trace codes."
https://swi-prolog.discourse.group/t/the-unrusting-blade-an-offline-first-logicbiz-v-2-0-powered-by-swi-prolog-sqlcipher-reply-01/9752

Thank you for your unhinged nonsense!

Bye

P.S.: Isn't following georgi gerganov or
andrej karpathy more exciting. What if you
want to integrate a chatbot into your web

storefront, which is not a point of sale,
but a pizza ordering web site? Do it with
uber eats out of the box. Are we already lost?

Or can we rise without burning?

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> The SWI-Prolog community is a circus.
> I mean there are not only clowns like
> Boris the Loris and Nazi Retard Julio,
> 
> there are also clowns like completely
> mentally deranged Philosophy Professors,
> such as Joseph Vidal Rosset.
> 
> But what can one expect from the Dutchies,
> that had their peak with Automath in the 60s,
> from then on it only went downhill.
> 
> Bye
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Instead presenting a clown world like here:
>>
>> - The smart system for printing labels and reference
>> lines in Fitch proofs has been invented by B., a Prolog
>> expert who usually dislikes seeing his name quoted.
>> https://www.vidal-rosset.net/2025-11-17-swi-tinker-for-swi-prolog-provers.html 
>>
>>
>> You could simply state that the Fitch renderer
>> is derived from Curry-Howard isomorphism proof
>> terms. This is pretty much folk knowledge in logic
>>
>> circles, and wasnt invented by me. I was only
>> the messenger for things that every Logician should
>> know, already at least for 60 years, the original
>>
>> THE FORMULAE-AS-TYPES NOTION OF CONSTRUCTION
>> W. A. Howard - University of Chicago
>> https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~crary/819-f09/Howard80.pdf
>>
>> Curry-Howard paper already circulated in 1969.
>> That was around the same time when Automath
>> ("automating mathematics") was devised by Nicolaas
>>
>> Govert de Bruijn, for expressing complete mathematical
>> theories in such a way that an included automated
>> proof checker can verify their correctness.
>>
>> Bye
>>
>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> What if Computer Vision = Computer Linguistic.
>>> That is, if the areas are based on the same
>>> problems and the same solutions.
>>>
>>> An example I “see” a doorknob.  In order to
>>> open the door I have to be able to visually
>>> recognize a variety of different designs and
>>> classify them according to function.
>>>
>>> Is this part on the door intended to open the door?
>>>
>>> We can do that as humans.  It's the same problem
>>> with words.  There are different words with the
>>> same "function" in a context. In principle it's
>>>
>>> very similar, I could imagine that Computer Vision
>>> has simply re-fertilized Computer Linguistic.
>>>
>>> Bye
>>>
>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> How it started:
>>>>
>>>> Computers Still Can't Do Beautiful Mathematics - by Gina Kolata
>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Mathematicians often say that their craft is as much an art
>>>> as a science.  But as more and more researchers are using
>>>> computers to prove their theorems, some worry that the magic
>>>> is in danger of fading away.
>>>>
>>>> How its going:
>>>>
>>>> Computers Do Produce Beautiful Mathematics - Dr. Larry Wos
>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> In addition to exhibiting logical reasoning of the type
>>>> found in mathematics, reasoning programs produce results
>>>> that are startling and elegant.  Dr. J. Lukasiewicz was well
>>>> recognized for his contributions to areas of logic,
>>>>
>>>> and yet the program OTTER recently found a proof far shorter and
>>>> more elegant than that produced by this eminent researcher,
>>>> and the program used the same notation and style of
>>>> reasoning.  Mathematicians and logicians find elegance in
>>>> shorter proofs.
>>>>
>>>> In August of 1990, Dr. Dana Scott of Carnegie Mellon
>>>> University attended a workshop at Argonne National
>>>> Laboratory.  There he learned of OTTER and some of its uses
>>>> and successes.  Upon returning to his university, Dr.
>>>> Scott's curiosity prompted him to suggest (via electronic
>>>> mail) 68 theorems for consideration by the computer.
>>>>
>>>> His curiosity was almost immediately satisfied, for the sought-
>>>> after 68 proofs were returned with the comment that all were
>>>> obtained in a single computer run with the program--and in
>>>> less than 16 CPU minutes on a Sun 4 workstation.  Dr. Scott
>>>> now uses his own copy of OTTER on his Macintosh.
>>>>
>>>> Dr. R. Smullyan of the University of Indiana showed
>>>> great pleasure and surprise at learning of some of the
>>>> successes achieved by an automated reasoning program.  As
>>>> evidence of his interest, he posed a number of questions,
>>>> receiving in turn the answers to all but one of them--a
>>>> question that is still open.
>>>> https://theory.stanford.edu/~uribe/mail/qed.messages/91.html
>>>>
>>>> Bye
>>>
>>
> 

[toc] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web