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

Groups > comp.lang.prolog > #14671

eGovernements will need AGI to survive (Was: Corr. (Was: Wait till they find out about compare/3))

Show all headers | View raw

Hi,

Maybe AGI should take over proving.
Just take the humans out of the loop
of any programming, it leads to nowhere.

Bye

 > Julio Di Egidio schrieb:
 > > But we must thank MS for the nail in that coffin, too: they can't
 > > be satisfied with just a Lean broken by design, they must own the
 > > whole compartment: only poisoned meatballs for the public...
 >
 > -Julio

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Corr.: Small typo in the number
> expansion itself, should read:
> 
> 10/81 = 0.(123456790) = 0.12345679(012345679)
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Now somebody was so friendly to spear head
>> a new Don Quixote attempt in fighting the
>> windmills of compare/3. Interestingly my
>>
>> favorite counter example still goes through:
>>
>> ?- X = X-0-9-7-6-5-4-3-2-1, Y = Y-7-5-8-2-4-1,
>>     compare_with_stack(C, X, Y).
>> X = X-0-9-7-6-5-4-3-2-1,
>> Y = Y-7-5-8-2-4-1,
>> C = (<).
>>
>> ?- H = H-9-7-6-5-4-3-2-1-0, Z = H-9-7-6-5-4-3-2-1, Y = Y-7-5-8-2-4-1,
>>     compare_with_stack(C, Z, Y).
>> H = H-9-7-6-5-4-3-2-1-0,
>> Z = H-9-7-6-5-4-3-2-1,
>> Y = Y-7-5-8-2-4-1,
>> C = (>).
>>
>> ?- H = H-9-7-6-5-4-3-2-1-0, Z = H-9-7-6-5-4-3-2-1, X = 
>> X-0-9-7-6-5-4-3-2-1,
>>     compare_with_stack(C, Z, X).
>> H = H-9-7-6-5-4-3-2-1-0,
>> Z = X, X = X-0-9-7-6-5-4-3-2-1,
>> C = (=).
>>
>> I posted it here in March 2023:
>>
>> Careful with compare/3 and Brent algorithm
>> https://swi-prolog.discourse.group/t/careful-with-compare-3-and-brent-algorithm/6413 
>>
>>
>> Its based that rational terms are indeed in
>> some relation to rational numbers. The above
>> terms are related to:
>>
>> 10/81 = 0.(123456790) = 0.12345679(02345679)
>>
>> Bye
>>
>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> That false/0 and not fail/0 is now all over the place,
>>> I don't mean in person but for example here:
>>>
>>> ?- X=f(f(X), X), Y=f(Y, f(Y)), X = Y.
>>> false.
>>>
>>> Is a little didactical nightmare.
>>>
>>> Syntactic unification has mathematical axioms (1978),
>>> to fully formalize unifcation you would need to
>>> formalize both (=)/2 and (≠)/2 (sic!), otherwise you
>>> rely on some negation as failure concept.
>>>
>>> Keith L. Clark, Negation as Failure
>>> https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4684-3384-5_11
>>>
>>> You can realize a subset of a mixture of (=)/2
>>> and (≠)/2 in the form of a vanilla unify Prolog
>>> predicate using some of the meta programming
>>> facilities of Prolog, like var/1 and having some
>>>
>>> negation as failure reading:
>>>
>>> /* Vanilla Unify */
>>> unify(V, W) :- var(V), var(W), !, (V \== W -> V = W; true).
>>> unify(V, T) :- var(V), !, V = T.
>>> unify(S, W) :- var(W), !, W = S.
>>> unify(S, T) :- functor(S, F, N), functor(T, F, N),
>>>       S =.. [F|L], T =.. [F|R], maplist(unify, L, R).
>>>
>>> I indeed get:
>>>
>>> ?- X=f(f(X), X), Y=f(Y, f(Y)), unify(X,Y).
>>> false.
>>>
>>> If the vanilla unify/2 already fails then unify
>>> with and without subject to occurs check, will also
>>> fail, and unify with and without ability to
>>> handle rational terms, will also fail:
>>>
>>> Bye
>>>
>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>>
>>>> Interestingly, DCG is also affect. Here a
>>>> DCG take of an append app/3, it has the 2nd
>>>> and 3rd argument swapped:
>>>>
>>>> ?- [user].
>>>> app([]) --> [].
>>>> app([X|Y]) --> [X], app(Y).
>>>> ^D
>>>>
>>>> Looks like an append, taking the argument swap
>>>> into account, the A=B is redundant, could
>>>> be optimized away:
>>>>
>>>> /* SWI-Prolog 9.3.25 */
>>>> ?- listing(app/3).
>>>> app([], A, B) :-
>>>>      A=B.
>>>> app([A|B], [A|C], D) :-
>>>>      app(B, C, D).
>>>>
>>>> And works like an append, again taking the
>>>> argument swap into account:
>>>>
>>>> ?- app([1],X,[2,3]).
>>>> X = [1, 2, 3].
>>>>
>>>> Now the multi-argument indexing test, still
>>>> taking the argument swap into account;
>>>>
>>>> /* ECLiPSe Prolog 7.1beta #13 */
>>>> [eclipse 3]: app(X, [1], Y).
>>>>
>>>> X = []
>>>> Y = [1]
>>>> Yes (0.00s cpu, solution 1, maybe more) ? ;
>>>>
>>>> X = [1]
>>>> Y = []
>>>> Yes (0.00s cpu, solution 2)
>>>>
>>>> Versus:
>>>>
>>>> /* SWI-Prolog 9.3.25 */
>>>> ?- app(X, [1], Y).
>>>> X = [],
>>>> Y = [1] ;
>>>> X = [1],
>>>> Y = [] ;
>>>> false.
>>>>
>>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>>> I am currently doing a re-evaluation of an old
>>>>> Prolog system, checking what features I could adopt.
>>>>> This is unlike the current trend where people have
>>>>> turned their focus on GUIs, like XPCE,
>>>>>
>>>>> or a are stuck in an endless loop of parser
>>>>> problems, like in Trealla. But I would nevertheless
>>>>> share my finding. Take this simple example of
>>>>> a list append:
>>>>>
>>>>> app([], X, X).
>>>>> app([X|Y], Z, [X|T]) :- app(Y, Z, T).
>>>>>
>>>>> ECLiPSe Prolog gives me, only one redo question
>>>>> in the top-level:
>>>>>
>>>>> /* ECLiPSe Prolog 7.1beta #13 */
>>>>> [eclipse 2]: app(X,Y,[1]).
>>>>>
>>>>> X = []
>>>>> Y = [1]
>>>>> Yes (0.00s cpu, solution 1, maybe more) ? ;
>>>>>
>>>>> X = [1]
>>>>> Y = []
>>>>> Yes (0.00s cpu, solution 2)
>>>>>
>>>>> In SWI-Prolog I find, two redo questions
>>>>> in the top.level:
>>>>>
>>>>> /* SWI-Prolog 9.3.25 */
>>>>> ?- app(X,Y,[1]).
>>>>> X = [],
>>>>> Y = [1] ;
>>>>> X = [1],
>>>>> Y = [] ;
>>>>> false.
>>>>>
>>>>> I know SWI-Prolog handles lists differently
>>>>> than other Prolog terms during indexing. Could
>>>>> this be the reason? Or maybe that the call is
>>>>> not “hot” enough, so it doesn’t get JIT-ed.
>>>>>
>>>>> ECLiPSe Prolog does it on the very first call,
>>>>> and I assume its due to a kind of index on
>>>>> the 3rd argument.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
> 

Back to comp.lang.prolog | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

The Ghosts in my Cabinet: Indexing Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-07-10 12:45 +0200
  Observed while watching FAIL/REDO ports (Was: The Ghosts in my Cabinet: Indexing) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-07-10 12:46 +0200
    Shocking Revelation: No eGovernment can trust Prolog! (Was: Observed while watching FAIL/REDO ports) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-07-10 13:26 +0200
      Easier certification with 100% Prolog Prolog? (Was: Shocking Revelation: No eGovernment can trust Prolog!) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-07-10 14:05 +0200
        Doing a Prolog system without any iterator API (Was: Easier certification with 100% Prolog Prolog?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-07-10 14:14 +0200
          The headache with JIT indexing: Native -> Prolog (Was: Doing a Prolog system without any iterator API) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-07-10 14:40 +0200
            Just lets burn another candle for Barty Boy (Was: The headache with JIT indexing: Native -> Prolog) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-07-10 18:13 +0200
              Physics PhDs might never have heard of Quantifier Eliminations (Re: Just lets burn another candle for Barty Boy) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-07-10 18:33 +0200
                How long willl I piss on Bart Demoen (Was: Physics PhDs might never have heard of Quantifier Eliminations) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-07-10 18:39 +0200
                But I shouldn't waste too much time (Was: How long willl I piss on Bart Demoen) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-07-10 19:13 +0200
  DCG is easily affected (Was: The Ghosts in my Cabinet: Indexing) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-07-11 09:38 +0200
    The headache an eGovernment might get from Prolog (Was: DCG is easily affected) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-07-15 15:20 +0200
      Wait till they find out about compare/3 (Was: The headache an eGovernment might get from Prolog) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-07-15 15:24 +0200
        Corr. (Was: Wait till they find out about compare/3) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-07-15 15:28 +0200
          eGovernements will need AGI to survive (Was: Corr. (Was: Wait till they find out about compare/3)) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-07-15 18:41 +0200
            Having 2544 issues is probably a bad sign (Re: eGovernements will need AGI to survive) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-07-15 18:41 +0200
              The Signal Collapse gives us System Uncertainty (Re: Having 2544 issues is probably a bad sign) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-07-15 19:02 +0200
                Rename GitHub, to TurdPit, and make Amber Heard their CEO (Was: The Signal Collapse gives us System Uncertainty) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-07-15 19:52 +0200
            Humans are just overwhelmed by computers (Was: eGovernements will need AGI to survive) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-07-16 18:59 +0200
              Fishy 🐟 in Scryer Prolog and SWI-Prolog (Was: Humans are just overwhelmed by computers) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-07-16 20:08 +0200
                So we are essentially all using Trojan Horses 🐎 daily? (Re: Fishy 🐟 in Scryer Prolog and SWI-Prolog) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-07-17 10:57 +0200
                Strudel Rust gives Scryer Frust 💩: Try C+20 Pipes (Was: Fishy 🐟 in Scryer Prolog and SWI-Prolog( Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-25 22:55 +0100
              SWI-Prolog as a Test Bed for Copilots (Was: Humans are just overwhelmed by computers) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-07-20 14:36 +0200
                Mathematics currently hates Computer Science because of AI (Re: SWI-Prolog as a Test Bed for Copilots) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-07-20 15:13 +0200

csiph-web