The Signal Collapse gives us System Uncertainty (Re: Having 2544 issues is probably a bad sign)

From	Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.prolog
Subject	The Signal Collapse gives us System Uncertainty (Re: Having 2544 issues is probably a bad sign)
Date	2025-07-15 19:02 +0200
Message-ID	<10561j0$2953g$2@solani.org> (permalink)
References	(2 earlier) <1055ki3$2abt8$1@solani.org> <1055kpn$2ac5o$1@solani.org> <1055l2j$2ac8t$1@solani.org> <10560b0$2ak4u$1@solani.org> <10560cl$2ak4u$2@solani.org>

Show all headers | View raw

Hi,

1. Everybody’s a programmer now
    The barrier to entry dropped dramatically — you can
    become a "developer" with a few online tutorials
    and a GitHub account.

2. Everybody’s an academic now
    Academia expanded, but standards often fell. In
    some places, it's publish or perish, so paper
    mills and fake research flourish.

3. Signal Collapse ↔ Systemic Uncertainty
    Credentials lose meaning, No reliable markers of
    skill, Fragile systems built on shallow knowledge

4. Signal Collapse ↔ Systemic Uncertainty
    Quantity overwhelms quality, Important truths get
    buried, Bad signals drown good ones

Etc..

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> Having 2544 issues is probably a bad sign.
> I find this many issues here:
> 
> https://github.com/rocq-prover/rocq/issues
> 
> Mostlikely 90% of the issues can be move to
> the new discussion feature of GitHub.
> 
> LoL
> 
> Bye
> 
> P.S.: Same holds for Scryer Prolog with 406 issues.
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

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