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

Groups > comp.lang.prolog > #14756

I guess its back to Hopcroft and Karp.Re: The Bitrot called Math Stack Exchange)

Show all headers | View raw

I guess its back to Hopcroft and Karp. And say
goodby to Mercio’s. What would work for sorting
and conservativity is a certain normal form of a DFA.
I was researching creating a minimal DFA,

but didn’t found yet a good paper. A O(N^2)
algorithm is rather straight forward, but I
wonder what a O(N log(N)) algorithm does. I only
find a good paper detailing bisimulation.

Especially from an implementation point of view,
still forming an arc to mathematical theory as well:

Hopcroft and Karp’s algorithm for Non-deterministic Finite Automata
https://hal.science/hal-00639716v1/file/hkc.pdf

You might be surprised that your algorithms
compare_with_stack/3, escentially contain what
is know by the name “Naive Hopcroft and Karp
for Equality of DFA”. Whereby what SWI-Prolog

internally uses with Union Find, ist called the
“Non-Naive Hopcroft and Karp for Equality of DFA”.

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> But who would have thought that Gameification leads to
> Bitrot? I mean I asked the question when I had user4414,
> until somebody mobbed me on MSE.
> 
> Now there is a nonsense answer accepted, and I will
> not correct it. Since I don't use Bitrot anymore:
> 
> https://math.stackexchange.com/a/210730
> 
> The question "What is a natural one that is closest
> to the lexical order?" of course wants "Conservativity".
> Because by "lexical order" we mean (@<)/2 from Prolog.
> 
> But Mercio’s Algorithm doesn't satisfy Mats Carlsons appeal,
> so we find a counter example to "Conservativity", which
> is quite interesting:
> 
> problem(X, Y) :-
>     repeat, fuzzy(X), acyclic_term(X),
>     fuzzy(Y), acyclic_term(Y),
>     mercio(<, X, Y), \+ X @< Y.
> 
> ?- problem(X, Y).
> X = s(s(1, 1), 1),
> Y = s(s(1, _), s(_, 1))
> 
> It is interesting, since it is now an a) an acyclic term,
> and that b) violates Mats Carlsons appeal:
> 
> ?- X = s(s(1, 1), 1), Y = s(s(1, _), s(_, 1)), mercio(C, X, Y).
> X = s(s(1, 1), 1),
> Y = s(s(1, _), s(_, 1)),
> C = (<).
> 
> ?- X1 = s(1,1), Y1 = s(1,_), mercio(C, X1, Y1).
> X1 = s(1, 1),
> Y1 = s(1, _),
> C = (>).
> 
> This is kind of an independence proof of total
> order and Mats Carlsons appeal.
> 
> Cool!
> 
> Bye
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Nope, stack overflow didn't invent Gameification.
>> This was already quite fun:
>>
>> IEEE Guide to Classificaton of Software Anomalies
>> https://github.com/Orthant/IEEE/blob/master/1044.1-1995.pdf
>>
>> Here some examples:
>>
>> - Boing Airplane lost in the Maledives:
>>    No problem, severity 7
>>
>> - Salary Payed twice by Booking Software:
>>    No problem, severity 0
>>
>> LoL
>>
>> Bye
>>
>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>> Mercio’s Algorithm (2012) for Rational
>>> Tree Compare is specified here mathematically.
>>> It is based on computing truncations A' = (A_0,
>>> A_1, etc..) of a rational tree A:
>>>
>>> A < B ⟺ A′ <_lex B′
>>>
>>> https://math.stackexchange.com/a/210730
>>>
>>> Here is an implementation in Prolog.
>>> First the truncation:
>>>
>>> trunc(_, T, T) :- var(T), !.
>>> trunc(0, T, F) :- !, functor(T, F, _).
>>> trunc(N, T, S) :-
>>>     M is N-1,
>>>     T =.. [F|L],
>>>     maplist(trunc(M), L, R),
>>>     S =.. [F|R].
>>>
>>> And then the iterative deepening:
>>>
>>> mercio(N, X, Y, C) :-
>>>     trunc(N, X, A),
>>>     trunc(N, Y, B),
>>>     compare(D, A, B),
>>>     D \== (=), !, C = D.
>>> mercio(N, X, Y, C) :-
>>>     M is N + 1,
>>>     mercio(M, X, Y, C).
>>>
>>> The main entry first uses (==)/2 for a
>>> terminating equality check and if the
>>> rational trees are not equal, falls back
>>> to the iterative deepening:
>>>
>>> mercio(C, X, Y) :- X == Y, !, C = (=).
>>> mercio(C, X, Y) :- mercio(0, X, Y, C).
>>>
>>> I couldn’t find yet a triple that violates
>>> transitivity. But I am also not much happy
>>> with the code. Looks a little bit expensive
>>> to create a truncation copy iteratively.
>>>
>>> Provided there is really no counter example,
>>> maybe we can do mit more smart and faster? It
>>> might also stand the test of conservativity?
>>
> 

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

Thread

Mercio’s Algorithm for Rational Tree Compare in Prolog Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-08-04 02:52 +0200
  The Original Ganster (OG) of Gameification: IEEE 1044.1-1995 (Was: Mercio’s Algorithm for Rational Tree Compare in Prolog) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-08-04 13:48 +0200
    The Bitrot called Math Stack Exchange (Re: The Original Ganster (OG) of Gameification: IEEE 1044.1-1995) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-08-04 14:00 +0200
      I guess its back to Hopcroft and Karp.Re: The Bitrot called Math Stack Exchange) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-08-04 14:11 +0200
  Szpilrajn Theorem and Suzumura Consistency (Was: Mercio’s Algorithm for Rational Tree Compare in Prolog) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-08-06 01:50 +0200
    The good thing is we have at least Mercio’s Algorithm (Re: Szpilrajn Theorem and Suzumura Consistency) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-08-06 08:10 +0200
      Hopcroft and Karp’s is just Contraction (Was: The good thing is we have at least Mercio’s Algorithm) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-08-06 08:13 +0200
        Re: Hopcroft and Karp’s is just Contraction (Was: The good thing is we have at least Mercio’s Algorithm) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-08-06 08:23 +0200
      Should we use minimum_coa/3 ? (Was: The good thing is we have at least Mercio’s Algorithm) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-08-08 23:45 +0200
        Perfectly balanced , as all things should be! (Was: Should we use minimum_coa/3 ?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-08-08 23:49 +0200
  Mercios decidability was already attested in 2012 (Was: Mercio’s Algorithm for Rational Tree Compare in Prolog) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-08-14 20:26 +0200
    Performance of Mercio’s Total Order (Was: Mercios decidability was already attested in 2012) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-08-15 23:49 +0200
      Fuzzy Testing is your Swiss Knife (Re: Performance of Mercio’s Total Order) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-08-15 23:55 +0200
        Yeah, we have another name! (Was: Fuzzy Testing is your Swiss Knife) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-08-16 12:38 +0200
        Monte Carlo sampling the frontier version (Was: Yeah, we have another name!) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-08-16 12:42 +0200
        AI most hated by formal verification (Was: Fuzzy Testing is your Swiss Knife) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-26 17:02 +0100
  An NPU could give 1000x more LIPS (Was: Mercio’s Algorithm for Rational Tree Compare in Prolog) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-27 14:19 +0100
    Neural Network based dif/2 respectively (#\=)/2 (Re: An NPU could give 1000x more LIPS) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-27 14:51 +0100
      Zeus: A Language for Expressing Algorithms in Hardware (Re: Neural Network based dif/2 respectively (#\=)/2) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-27 15:03 +0100
        Googles TPU muscle in 2017 [Prolog Community is Sleepy Joe] (Re: Zeus: A Language for Expressing Algorithms in Hardware) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-27 15:23 +0100
    100% serious Giga Logical Inferences per Second (GLIPS) (Was: An NPU could give 1000x more LIPS) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-28 14:50 +0100
      The tables have turned: GigaLIP on the Laptop? (Re: 100% serious Giga Logical Inferences per Second (GLIPS) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-28 15:12 +0100

csiph-web