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

Groups > comp.theory > #49358

Re: Is this correct Prolog?

Subject Re: Is this correct Prolog?
Newsgroups comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, comp.lang.prolog
References (2 earlier) <3_OdnbuxKP_vePD_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <AQlbK.11129$lX6b.2320@fx33.iad> <39adnR-AIvg5c_D_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <uombK.379436$Gojc.287190@fx99.iad> <pPSdnSU56NRla_D_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org>
Message-ID <VTmbK.655548$mF2.416033@fx11.iad> (permalink)
Organization Forte - www.forteinc.com
Date 2022-04-30 23:11 -0400

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On 4/30/22 10:56 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/30/2022 9:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 4/30/22 10:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/30/2022 9:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 4/30/22 9:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/30/2022 8:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/30/22 3:02 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> LP := ~True(LP) is translated to Prolog:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)).
>>>>>>> LP = not(true(LP)).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
>>>>>>> false.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (SWI-Prolog (threaded, 64 bits, version 7.6.4)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350789898_Prolog_detects_and_rejects_pathological_self_reference_in_the_Godel_sentence 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since it isn't giving you a "syntax error", it is probably correct 
>>>>>> Prolog. Not sure if your interpretation of the results is correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All that false means is that the statement
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LP = not(true(LP))
>>>>>>
>>>>>> is recursive and that Prolog can't actually evaluate it due to its 
>>>>>> limited logic rules.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That is not what Clocksin & Mellish says. They say it is an 
>>>>> erroneous "infinite term" meaning that it specifies infinitely 
>>>>> nested definition like this:
>>>>
>>>> No, that IS what they say, that this sort of recursion fails the 
>>>> test of Unification, not that it is has no possible logical meaning.
>>>>
>>>> Prolog represents a somewhat basic form of logic, useful for many 
>>>> cases, but not encompassing all possible reasoning systems.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe it can handle every one that YOU can understand, but it can't 
>>>> handle many higher order logical structures.
>>>>
>>>> Note, for instance, at least some ways of writing factorial for an 
>>>> unknown value can lead to an infinite expansion, but the factorial 
>>>> is well defined for all positive integers. The fact that a "prolog 
>>>> like" expansion operator might not be able to handle the definition, 
>>>> doesn't mean it doesn't have meaning.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is really dumb that you continue to take wild guesses again the 
>>> verified facts.
>>>
>>> Please read the Clocksin & Mellish (on page 3 of my paper) text and 
>>> eliminate your ignorance.
>>>
>>
>> I did. You just don't seem to understand what I am saying because it 
>> is above your head.
>>
>> Prolog is NOT the defining authority for what is a valid logical 
>> statement, but a system of programming to handle a subset of those 
>> statements (a useful subset, but a subset).
>>
>> The fact that Prolog doesn't allow something doesn't mean it doesn't 
>> have a logical meaning, only that it doesn't have a logical meaning in 
>> Prolog.
> In this case it does. I have spent thousands of hours on the semantic 
> error of infinitely recursive definition and written a dozen papers on 
> it. Glancing at one of two of the words of Clocksin & Mellish does not 
> count as reading it.

And it appears that you don't understand it, because you still make 
category errors when trying to talk about it.

> 
> BEGIN:(Clocksin & Mellish 2003:254)
> Finally, a note about how Prolog matching sometimes differs from the 
> unification used in Resolution. Most Prolog systems will allow you to 
> satisfy goals like:
> 
>    equal(X, X).?-
>    equal(foo(Y), Y).
> 
> that is, they will allow you to match a term against an uninstantiated 
> subterm of itself. In this example, foo(Y) is matched against Y, which 
> appears within it. As a result, Y will stand for foo(Y), which is 
> foo(foo(Y)) (because of what Y stands for), which is foo(foo(foo(Y))), 
> and so on. So Y ends up standing for some kind of infinite structure.
> END:(Clocksin & Mellish 2003:254)
> 
> foo(foo(foo(foo(foo(foo(foo(foo(foo(foo(foo(foo(foo(foo(foo(...))))))))))))))) 
> 

Right. but some infinite structures might actually have meaning. The 
fact that Prolog uses certain limited method to figure out meaning 
doesn't mean that other methods can't find the meaning.

Just like:

Fact(n) := (N == 1) ? 1 : N*Fact(n-1);

if naively expanded has an infinite expansion.

But, based on mathematical knowledge, and can actually be proven from 
the definition, something like Fact(n+1)/fact(n), even for an unknown n, 
can be reduced without the need to actually expend infinite operations.

Note, this is actual shown in your case of H(H^,H^). Yes, if H doesn't 
abort its simulation, then for THAT H^, we have that H^(H^) is 
non-halting, but so is H(H^,H^), and thus THAT H / H^ pair fails to be a 
counter example

When you program H to abort its simulation of H^ at some point, and 
build your H^ on that H, then H(H^,H^), will return the non-halting 
answer, and H^(H^) when PROPERLY run or simulated halts, because H has 
the same "cut off" logic at the factorial above.

The naive expansion thinks it is infinite, but the correct expansion 
sees the cut off and sees that it is actually finite.

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

Thread

Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-04-30 02:02 -0500
  Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-04-30 21:08 -0400
    Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-04-30 20:42 -0500
      Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-04-30 22:00 -0400
        Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-04-30 21:21 -0500
          Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-04-30 22:38 -0400
            Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-04-30 21:56 -0500
              Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-04-30 23:11 -0400
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-04-30 22:15 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-04-30 23:24 -0600
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 06:35 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 13:16 -0400
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-01 13:19 +0100
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? polcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-01 07:51 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 13:19 -0400
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-05-01 11:22 -0600
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 07:18 -0400
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 06:50 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 13:26 -0400
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 06:28 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 08:01 -0400
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 07:09 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 08:16 -0400
    Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-04-30 20:47 -0500
      Re: Is this correct Prolog? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-04-30 19:53 -0600
        Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-04-30 23:49 -0500
          Re: Is this correct Prolog? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-04-30 23:34 -0600
            Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 06:40 -0500
              Re: Is this correct Prolog? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-01 07:35 -0600
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? polcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-01 10:57 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-01 10:15 -0600
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 11:57 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-01 11:21 -0600
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 11:08 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-01 10:21 -0600
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 12:01 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-01 18:59 +0100
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 13:28 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-01 12:33 -0600
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 14:00 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 15:19 -0400
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-01 13:22 -0600
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 14:32 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-01 13:44 -0600
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 14:48 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-01 13:54 -0600
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 15:03 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-01 14:37 -0600
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 15:42 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-01 14:51 -0600
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 17:04 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 18:08 -0400
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-01 17:39 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 19:18 -0400
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-01 17:26 -0600
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-01 19:58 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 21:32 -0400
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-01 20:53 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 22:14 -0400
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-01 21:18 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-01 20:37 -0600
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 22:47 -0400
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-01 22:04 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-01 22:10 -0600
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-02 07:10 -0400
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 08:19 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-02 18:38 -0400
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-01 16:37 -0600
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-01 17:44 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-01 17:15 -0600
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ André is proven to be a liar ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 18:33 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ André is proven to be a liar ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-01 16:39 -0700
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ André is proven to be a liar ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 18:51 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ André is proven to be a liar ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-01 17:44 -0600
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ André is proven to be a liar ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 18:53 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ André is proven to be a liar ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-01 18:13 -0600
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ André is proven to be a liar ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-01 18:15 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ André is proven to be a liar ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 19:21 -0400
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ André is proven to be a liar ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-01 19:56 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-01 17:05 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 16:55 -0400
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 16:01 -0400
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-05-01 15:10 -0600
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-01 15:11 -0600
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-01 16:49 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 18:07 -0400
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-01 17:35 -0500
  Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 05:58 -0500
    Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 07:12 -0400
      Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 06:45 -0500
        Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 08:07 -0400
          Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 07:15 -0500
            Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 13:49 -0400
  Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 06:00 -0500
    Re: Is this correct Prolog? Aleksy Grabowski <hurufu@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 13:49 +0200
      Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 08:09 -0500
        Re: Is this correct Prolog? Aleksy Grabowski <hurufu@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 15:35 +0200
          Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 08:55 -0500
            Re: Is this correct Prolog? Aleksy Grabowski <hurufu@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 16:28 +0200
              Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 10:24 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? Aleksy Grabowski <hurufu@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 17:44 +0200
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 11:04 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? Aleksy Grabowski <hurufu@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 18:38 +0200
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 11:49 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-05-02 11:28 -0600
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-02 19:41 +0100
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 14:26 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 14:32 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-02 18:28 -0400
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? Aleksy Grabowski <hurufu@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 00:41 +0200
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-03 00:43 +0100
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 19:57 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-03 03:21 +0100
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 22:01 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-03 08:05 -0400
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-04 21:30 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-04 22:46 -0400
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-04 22:02 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-05 07:41 -0400
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 12:57 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-05 12:06 -0600
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 16:23 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-05 20:41 -0600
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-05-05 23:09 -0600
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 00:16 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-06 07:39 -0600
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 12:17 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-06 11:31 -0600
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 13:36 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-06 12:41 -0600
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 14:03 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-06 13:11 -0600
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 14:23 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-06 13:27 -0600
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 14:39 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-06 13:46 -0600
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 14:51 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-06 13:55 -0600
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 15:35 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-05 22:24 -0400
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 21:37 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-06 07:43 -0400
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ Tarski ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 15:29 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-03 15:59 +0100
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 10:44 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 14:49 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-05-04 00:13 +0200
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 17:23 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-05-04 00:40 +0200
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 17:47 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-03 09:18 -0600
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 11:08 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-03 10:52 -0600
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 12:05 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-03 11:17 -0600
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 12:33 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-03 12:23 -0600
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 13:59 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-03 14:03 -0600
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 22:24 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-03 21:54 -0600
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-04 07:27 -0400
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ André didn't lie after all ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 12:08 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ André didn't lie after all ] "B.H." <xlt.pjw@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 10:13 -0700
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ André didn't lie after all ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 12:17 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ André didn't lie after all ] "B.H." <xlt.pjw@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 10:25 -0700
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? [ André didn't lie after all ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 13:07 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-05-03 12:33 -0600
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 14:12 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-03 13:22 -0600
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 21:53 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-03 23:12 -0400
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 22:53 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-03 22:06 -0600
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-04 01:17 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-04 08:02 -0600
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-04 14:01 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-04 19:48 -0400
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-04 09:49 +0300
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-04 12:55 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-06 15:46 +0300
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 12:24 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-05-03 15:58 -0600
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 17:13 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? Aleksy Grabowski <hurufu@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 10:46 +0200
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 10:06 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-03 22:20 -0400
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 19:11 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 19:35 -0500
                Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-02 20:47 -0400
  Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 06:06 -0500
    Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 07:26 -0400
      Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 06:54 -0500
        Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 08:11 -0400
          Re: Is this correct Prolog? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-01 07:19 -0500
            Re: Is this correct Prolog? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-01 14:00 -0400

csiph-web