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

Groups > comp.lang.prolog > #14972

Re: 2.1 Logical variables and equations (Re: Clueless Moron and Paid Putin Troll)

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

Hi,

We can though prove in FOL:

∀y∃!x x = f(y)

Another example with existence,
that doesn't boil down to unique
existence, is this here:

∃x∃y(x = f(y))

One might find it in Prolog as
X = f(_) with an anonymous variable _.
Now its not possible to derive:

/* Not Generally Valid */
∃!x∃y(x = f(y))

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> 
> 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 <ee@ard.nl> 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.
>>>
>>> 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, bert) -> B=1;B=0),
>>>>     (call(_LS, anna) -> A=1;A=0).
>>>> B = 0, A = 1.
>>>>
>>>> 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! 🎭
>>>>
>>>
>>
> 

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

Thread

😂 "Plog-like" - that should be the official term! Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-10-08 01:14 +0200
  How deep seek went bonkers (Re: 😂 "Plog-like" - that should be the official term!) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-10-08 01:23 +0200
  Declarative farts versus MSI Claw AI+, who would win? (Was: 😂 "Plog-like" - that should be the official term!) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-10-23 14:35 +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 15:19 +0200
      The intelligent Cloud, Fog and Edge is evolving (Was: Gameified AI Engineers brains blown out [Kurzweil's 2045 Prediction]) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-10-24 11:38 +0200
        More Dreams: LLM + Chess = LRM (Was: The intelligent Cloud, Fog and Edge is evolving) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-10-25 12:50 +0200
          Not for Boris the Loris and Julio the Nazi Retared (Was: More Dreams: LLM + Chess = LRM) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-10-25 13:08 +0200
  Arrow Functions can do Existential Quantifier (Was: 😂 "Plog-like" - that should be the official term!) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-06 14:12 +0100
    Resolving Ambiguity in Negation as Failure Re: Arrow Functions can do Existential Quantifier (Was: 😂 "Plog-like" - that should be the official term!) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-06 14:21 +0100
      Future Outlook of Logic Programming (Was: Resolving Ambiguity in Negation as Failure) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-06 14:25 +0100
    Clueless Moron and Paid Putin Troll (Re: Arrow Functions can do Existential Quantifier) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-06 22:50 +0100
      2.1 Logical variables and equations (Re: Clueless Moron and Paid Putin Troll) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-06 22:51 +0100
        Re: 2.1 Logical variables and equations (Re: Clueless Moron and Paid Putin Troll) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-06 22:52 +0100
          Re: 2.1 Logical variables and equations (Re: Clueless Moron and Paid Putin Troll) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-06 22:52 +0100
          Re: 2.1 Logical variables and equations (Re: Clueless Moron and Paid Putin Troll) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-06 23:56 +0100
          Re: 2.1 Logical variables and equations (Re: Clueless Moron and Paid Putin Troll) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-06 23:58 +0100
            What does Type Free mean? (Re: 2.1 Logical variables and equations) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-06 23:59 +0100
      A noiseless patient Spider is a Pussy Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-07 00:03 +0100
  2025 Obituary: Skew Confluence (aka “Stews” 😆) (Was: 😂 "Plog-like" - that should be the official term!) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-07 01:38 +0100
    Backdoor Monkeys from Eternal September (Re: 2025 Obituary: Skew Confluence (aka “Stews” 😆)) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-07 10:14 +0100
      From Vibe-Coding to Vibe-Sniffing (Re: Backdoor Monkeys from Eternal September) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-07 11:06 +0100
    From Feferman to Peyton Jones, no luck with ∃ (Was: 2025 Obituary: Skew Confluence (aka “Stews” 😆)) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-08 20:33 +0100
      Taxon (TBox) / Affirm (ABox) was a thing in the 90s? (e: The quantifer ∃ is just the Combinator K (Schönfinkels C)?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-08 22:30 +0100
  Not Ross Finlayson: Pioneers Cliff B. Jones (Re: 😂 "Plog-like" - that should be the official term!) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-09 21:18 +0100

csiph-web