From Newsgroup: comp.lang.prolog


Henri Poincar|- believed that mathematical
and scientific creativity came from a deep,
unconscious intuition that could not be

captured by mechanical reasoning or formal
systems. He famously wrote about how insights
came not from plodding logic but from sudden

illuminations rCo leaps of creative synthesis.

But now we have generative AI rCo models like GPT rCo that:

- produce poetry, proofs, stories, and code,

- combine ideas in novel ways,

- and do so by processing patterns in massive
datasets, without conscious understanding.

And that does seem to contradict Poincar|-'s belief
that true invention cannot come from automation.

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

But I shouldn't waste too much time.
One shouldn't punish people for just
being plain stupid.

Like for example this clueless french
philosopher who had a lot of troubles
with non-classical logic.

His brain tried to eliminate non-classical
logic, it was keen on avoiding non-classical
logic. A typical species of a human with

an extremly small brain, again working
in the wrong place!

Bye

P.S.: Maybe this a Poincar|- thingy? Poincar|-
was a strong critic of logicism (as championed
by Frege and Russell) and of HilbertrCOs
formalist program.

But, he did not formally use or promote systems
like intuitionistic logic, modal logic, or
relevance logic. His logical framework remained
within the bounds of classical logic,

though he was skeptical of excessive formalism.
He thought formal systems could miss the creative
and synthetic nature of mathematical
invention.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.prolog

Hi,

This is nothing for Bart Demoen, Physics PhD,
academic fraud. The ideal choice point can
be formulated as a logical formula, involving

an existential quantifier. Assume we have
a query and already these answers, and the
Prolog system is prompting the interactive user:

?- p(X).
X = a1 ;
X = a2 ;
...
X = ak-1 ;
X = ak

A mathematical oracle that could indicate whether
it is even necessary to prompt the user could be:

reaX ( p(X) & X =\= a1 & ... & X =\= ak)

It doesn't match 100% Prolog since Prolog might
give duplicate answers or non-ground answers,
but assume for the moment the query q(X),

produces only distinct and ground results.
Nice existential FOL formula we have in the above.

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Henri Poincar|- believed that mathematical
and scientific creativity came from a deep,
unconscious intuition that could not be

captured by mechanical reasoning or formal
systems. He famously wrote about how insights
came not from plodding logic but from sudden

illuminations rCo leaps of creative synthesis.

But now we have generative AI rCo models like GPT rCo that:

- produce poetry, proofs, stories, and code,

- combine ideas in novel ways,

- and do so by processing patterns in massive
-a datasets, without conscious understanding.

And that does seem to contradict Poincar|-'s belief
that true invention cannot come from automation.

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

But I shouldn't waste too much time.
One shouldn't punish people for just
being plain stupid.

Like for example this clueless french
philosopher who had a lot of troubles
with non-classical logic.

His brain tried to eliminate non-classical
logic, it was keen on avoiding non-classical
logic. A typical species of a human with

an extremly small brain, again working
in the wrong place!

Bye

P.S.: Maybe this a Poincar|- thingy? Poincar|-
was a strong critic of logicism (as championed
by Frege and Russell) and of HilbertrCOs
formalist program.

But, he did not formally use or promote systems
like intuitionistic logic, modal logic, or
relevance logic. His logical framework remained
within the bounds of classical logic,

though he was skeptical of excessive formalism.
He thought formal systems could miss the creative
and synthetic nature of mathematical
invention.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.prolog

Hi,

Now what does a Prolog system do? Well when
it prompts the end-user it has somewhere
a list of the current query choice points:

CPs = [CP1, CP2, .., CPn]

This is implementation specific, what choice
points a system creates, also the ISO core standard
shows a machine in its more procedural explanation,

that depicts something that has also somewhere
choice points. Since it is implementation specific
a Prolog System A and Prolog System B might

use different choice points:

System A:
CPs = [CP1, CP2, .., CPn]

System B:
CP's = [CP'1, CP'2, .., CP'n]

We say a System B could eliminate a choice point CP,
relative to a System A, if we have:

System A:
CP ree CPs

System B:
CP ree CPs

So System B might have an advantage over System A,
since it will not backtrack over CP.

When it comes to answer substitution display,
it is now very common, that a Prolog system checks
its own choice points, and when it finds that

CP = []

It knows that the query left no choice points,
either because there were never any, because
there was no branching in the executed code, or

because a cut removed branching, or because
they were eliminated somehow. Like through
some index analysis.

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

This is nothing for Bart Demoen, Physics PhD,
academic fraud. The ideal choice point can
be formulated as a logical formula, involving

an existential quantifier. Assume we have
a query and already these answers, and the
Prolog system is prompting the interactive user:

?- p(X).
X = a1 ;
X = a2 ;
...
X = ak-1 ;
X = ak

A mathematical oracle that could indicate whether
it is even necessary to prompt the user could be:

-a-a reaX ( p(X) & X =\= a1 & ... & X =\= ak)

It doesn't match 100% Prolog since Prolog might
give duplicate answers or non-ground answers,
but assume for the moment the query q(X),

produces only distinct and ground results.
Nice existential FOL formula we have in the above.

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Henri Poincar|- believed that mathematical
and scientific creativity came from a deep,
unconscious intuition that could not be

captured by mechanical reasoning or formal
systems. He famously wrote about how insights
came not from plodding logic but from sudden

illuminations rCo leaps of creative synthesis.

But now we have generative AI rCo models like GPT rCo that:

- produce poetry, proofs, stories, and code,

- combine ideas in novel ways,

- and do so by processing patterns in massive
-a-a datasets, without conscious understanding.

And that does seem to contradict Poincar|-'s belief
that true invention cannot come from automation.

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

But I shouldn't waste too much time.
One shouldn't punish people for just
being plain stupid.

Like for example this clueless french
philosopher who had a lot of troubles
with non-classical logic.

His brain tried to eliminate non-classical
logic, it was keen on avoiding non-classical
logic. A typical species of a human with

an extremly small brain, again working
in the wrong place!

Bye

P.S.: Maybe this a Poincar|- thingy? Poincar|-
was a strong critic of logicism (as championed
by Frege and Russell) and of HilbertrCOs
formalist program.

But, he did not formally use or promote systems
like intuitionistic logic, modal logic, or
relevance logic. His logical framework remained
within the bounds of classical logic,

though he was skeptical of excessive formalism.
He thought formal systems could miss the creative
and synthetic nature of mathematical
invention.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.prolog

Hi,

Now one might ask, if we have a Prolog system
that anyway juggles with choice points, why
would we need a logical formula for choice points?

Well there is a funny correctness criteria,
for example in the top-level, if the top-level
doesn't prompt the end user anymore in such a scenario:

?- p(X).
X = a1 ;
X = a2 ;
...
X = ak-1 ;
X = ak

So the end user is not prompted because the
Prolog system founds CP = []. This is licensed
by this correctness statement for any choice

point elimination:

CP = [] => ~reaX ( p(X) & X =\= a1 & ... & X =\= ak)

Have Fun!

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

Now what does a Prolog system do? Well when
it prompts the end-user it has somewhere
a list of the current query choice points:

CPs = [CP1, CP2, .., CPn]

This is implementation specific, what choice
points a system creates, also the ISO core standard
shows a machine in its more procedural explanation,

that depicts something that has also somewhere
choice points. Since it is implementation specific
a Prolog System A and Prolog System B might

use different choice points:

System A:
CPs = [CP1, CP2, .., CPn]

System B:
CP's = [CP'1, CP'2, .., CP'n]

We say a System B could eliminate a choice point CP,
relative to a System A, if we have:

System A:
CP ree CPs

System B:
CP ree CPs

So System B might have an advantage over System A,
since it will not backtrack over CP.

When it comes to answer substitution display,
it is now very common, that a Prolog system checks
its own choice points, and when it finds that

CP = []

It knows that the query left no choice points,
either because there were never any, because
there was no branching in the executed code, or

because a cut removed branching, or because
they were eliminated somehow. Like through
some index analysis.

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

This is nothing for Bart Demoen, Physics PhD,
academic fraud. The ideal choice point can
be formulated as a logical formula, involving

an existential quantifier. Assume we have
a query and already these answers, and the
Prolog system is prompting the interactive user:

?- p(X).
X = a1 ;
X = a2 ;
...
X = ak-1 ;
X = ak

A mathematical oracle that could indicate whether
it is even necessary to prompt the user could be:

-a-a-a reaX ( p(X) & X =\= a1 & ... & X =\= ak)

It doesn't match 100% Prolog since Prolog might
give duplicate answers or non-ground answers,
but assume for the moment the query q(X),

produces only distinct and ground results.
Nice existential FOL formula we have in the above.

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Henri Poincar|- believed that mathematical
and scientific creativity came from a deep,
unconscious intuition that could not be

captured by mechanical reasoning or formal
systems. He famously wrote about how insights
came not from plodding logic but from sudden

illuminations rCo leaps of creative synthesis.

But now we have generative AI rCo models like GPT rCo that:

- produce poetry, proofs, stories, and code,

- combine ideas in novel ways,

- and do so by processing patterns in massive
-a-a datasets, without conscious understanding.

And that does seem to contradict Poincar|-'s belief
that true invention cannot come from automation.

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

But I shouldn't waste too much time.
One shouldn't punish people for just
being plain stupid.

Like for example this clueless french
philosopher who had a lot of troubles
with non-classical logic.

His brain tried to eliminate non-classical
logic, it was keen on avoiding non-classical
logic. A typical species of a human with

an extremly small brain, again working
in the wrong place!

Bye

P.S.: Maybe this a Poincar|- thingy? Poincar|-
was a strong critic of logicism (as championed
by Frege and Russell) and of HilbertrCOs
formalist program.

But, he did not formally use or promote systems
like intuitionistic logic, modal logic, or
relevance logic. His logical framework remained
within the bounds of classical logic,

though he was skeptical of excessive formalism.
He thought formal systems could miss the creative
and synthetic nature of mathematical
invention.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.prolog

Hi,

Today I had an idea, of some semi-deep Prolog
argument indexing. Just because choice point
elimination is so important and has so many

benefits for performance and the end user
experience, like also debugging. And because it is
tied to indexing. An index and the resulting clause

list, which can be always checked for having reached
its end. This gives a look-ahead information to the
Prolog system which answers this oracle, concering

clause instantiation:

reaX ( p(X) & X =\= a1 & ... & X =\= ak)

So the idea of semi-deep Prolog argument indexing
would be a hybrid between Scryer Prolog and
SWI-Prolog taking the best of both worls.

It would adopt skip indexes from Scryer Prolog
and deep indexing of SWI-Prolog, but deep indexing
through a Key computation trick. The Key computation

trick is quickly explained.

Normal Key Computations:

p(a, ..) ~~> Computed Key: a/0 or sometimes a alone
p(b(x,y), ..) ~~> Computed Key: b/2 or sometimes b alone
Etc..

Semi Deep Key Computation:

p(a, ..) ~~> Computed Key: 'a'
p([a, ..], ..) ~~> Computed Key: '.a'
Ect..

Got it?

The Scryer Prolog skip index is needed because
in a DCG the interesting arguments are usually
not the first argument.

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

Now one might ask, if we have a Prolog system
that anyway juggles with choice points, why
would we need a logical formula for choice points?

Well there is a funny correctness criteria,
for example in the top-level, if the top-level
doesn't prompt the end user anymore in such a scenario:

?- p(X).
X = a1 ;
X = a2 ;
...
X = ak-1 ;
X = ak

So the end user is not prompted because the
Prolog system founds CP = []. This is licensed
by this correctness statement for any choice

point elimination:

CP = [] => ~reaX ( p(X) & X =\= a1 & ... & X =\= ak)

Have Fun!

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

Now what does a Prolog system do? Well when
it prompts the end-user it has somewhere
a list of the current query choice points:

CPs = [CP1, CP2, .., CPn]

This is implementation specific, what choice
points a system creates, also the ISO core standard
shows a machine in its more procedural explanation,

that depicts something that has also somewhere
choice points. Since it is implementation specific
a Prolog System A and Prolog System B might

use different choice points:

System A:
CPs = [CP1, CP2, .., CPn]

System B:
CP's = [CP'1, CP'2, .., CP'n]

We say a System B could eliminate a choice point CP,
relative to a System A, if we have:

System A:
CP ree CPs

System B:
CP ree CPs

So System B might have an advantage over System A,
since it will not backtrack over CP.

When it comes to answer substitution display,
it is now very common, that a Prolog system checks
its own choice points, and when it finds that

CP = []

It knows that the query left no choice points,
either because there were never any, because
there was no branching in the executed code, or

because a cut removed branching, or because
they were eliminated somehow. Like through
some index analysis.

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

This is nothing for Bart Demoen, Physics PhD,
academic fraud. The ideal choice point can
be formulated as a logical formula, involving

an existential quantifier. Assume we have
a query and already these answers, and the
Prolog system is prompting the interactive user:

?- p(X).
X = a1 ;
X = a2 ;
...
X = ak-1 ;
X = ak

A mathematical oracle that could indicate whether
it is even necessary to prompt the user could be:

-a-a-a reaX ( p(X) & X =\= a1 & ... & X =\= ak)

It doesn't match 100% Prolog since Prolog might
give duplicate answers or non-ground answers,
but assume for the moment the query q(X),

produces only distinct and ground results.
Nice existential FOL formula we have in the above.

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Henri Poincar|- believed that mathematical
and scientific creativity came from a deep,
unconscious intuition that could not be

captured by mechanical reasoning or formal
systems. He famously wrote about how insights
came not from plodding logic but from sudden

illuminations rCo leaps of creative synthesis.

But now we have generative AI rCo models like GPT rCo that:

- produce poetry, proofs, stories, and code,

- combine ideas in novel ways,

- and do so by processing patterns in massive
-a-a datasets, without conscious understanding.

And that does seem to contradict Poincar|-'s belief
that true invention cannot come from automation.

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

But I shouldn't waste too much time.
One shouldn't punish people for just
being plain stupid.

Like for example this clueless french
philosopher who had a lot of troubles
with non-classical logic.

His brain tried to eliminate non-classical
logic, it was keen on avoiding non-classical
logic. A typical species of a human with

an extremly small brain, again working
in the wrong place!

Bye

P.S.: Maybe this a Poincar|- thingy? Poincar|-
was a strong critic of logicism (as championed
by Frege and Russell) and of HilbertrCOs
formalist program.

But, he did not formally use or promote systems
like intuitionistic logic, modal logic, or
relevance logic. His logical framework remained
within the bounds of classical logic,

though he was skeptical of excessive formalism.
He thought formal systems could miss the creative
and synthetic nature of mathematical
invention.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.prolog

Hi,

Lets say these semi-deep Prolog argument indexing
will really work. Then I could rollback some
uses of ROKs trick in my DCG based code base,

where I massaged the DCG to have a terminal in
the first argument, and DCG was somehow degraded
in only doing the concatenative stuff, through its

monad rewriting. This would lead to elegant code.
But it will not perform on a couple of Prolog systems,
that don't have deep indexing. I suspect the more

elegant code will not perform on these Prolog system:

- GNU Prolog
- Scryer Prolog
- Trealla Prolog
-

I didn't check ECLiPSe Prolog towards deep indexing,
and also I didn't check Ciao Prolog towards deep
indexing yet. It will show good performance:

- SWI-Prolog
- Dogelog Player (if I add semi-deep and skip there)
- Jekejeke Runtime (if I add semi-deep there, it has already skip)
-

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

Today I had an idea, of some semi-deep Prolog
argument indexing. Just because choice point
elimination is so important and has so many

benefits for performance and the end user
experience, like also debugging. And because it is
tied to indexing. An index and the resulting clause

list, which can be always checked for having reached
its end. This gives a look-ahead information to the
Prolog system-a which answers this oracle, concering

clause instantiation:

reaX ( p(X) & X =\= a1 & ... & X =\= ak)

So the idea of semi-deep Prolog argument indexing
would be a hybrid between Scryer Prolog and
SWI-Prolog taking the best of both worls.

It would adopt skip indexes from Scryer Prolog
and deep indexing of SWI-Prolog, but deep indexing
through a Key computation trick. The Key computation

trick is quickly explained.

Normal Key Computations:

p(a, ..)-a-a-a-a-a ~~>-a Computed Key: a/0 or sometimes a alone
p(b(x,y), ..) ~~>-a Computed Key: b/2 or sometimes b alone
Etc..

Semi Deep Key Computation:

p(a, ..)-a-a-a-a-a-a-a ~~>-a Computed Key: 'a'
p([a, ..], ..)-a ~~>-a Computed Key: '.a'
Ect..

Got it?

The Scryer Prolog skip index is needed because
in a DCG the interesting arguments are usually
not the first argument.

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

Now one might ask, if we have a Prolog system
that anyway juggles with choice points, why
would we need a logical formula for choice points?

Well there is a funny correctness criteria,
for example in the top-level, if the top-level
doesn't prompt the end user anymore in such a scenario:

?- p(X).
X = a1 ;
X = a2 ;
...
X = ak-1 ;
X = ak

So the end user is not prompted because the
Prolog system founds CP = []. This is licensed
by this correctness statement for any choice

point elimination:

CP = [] => ~reaX ( p(X) & X =\= a1 & ... & X =\= ak)

Have Fun!

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

Now what does a Prolog system do? Well when
it prompts the end-user it has somewhere
a list of the current query choice points:

CPs = [CP1, CP2, .., CPn]

This is implementation specific, what choice
points a system creates, also the ISO core standard
shows a machine in its more procedural explanation,

that depicts something that has also somewhere
choice points. Since it is implementation specific
a Prolog System A and Prolog System B might

use different choice points:

System A:
CPs = [CP1, CP2, .., CPn]

System B:
CP's = [CP'1, CP'2, .., CP'n]

We say a System B could eliminate a choice point CP,
relative to a System A, if we have:

System A:
CP ree CPs

System B:
CP ree CPs

So System B might have an advantage over System A,
since it will not backtrack over CP.

When it comes to answer substitution display,
it is now very common, that a Prolog system checks
its own choice points, and when it finds that

CP = []

It knows that the query left no choice points,
either because there were never any, because
there was no branching in the executed code, or

because a cut removed branching, or because
they were eliminated somehow. Like through
some index analysis.

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

This is nothing for Bart Demoen, Physics PhD,
academic fraud. The ideal choice point can
be formulated as a logical formula, involving

an existential quantifier. Assume we have
a query and already these answers, and the
Prolog system is prompting the interactive user:

?- p(X).
X = a1 ;
X = a2 ;
...
X = ak-1 ;
X = ak

A mathematical oracle that could indicate whether
it is even necessary to prompt the user could be:

-a-a-a reaX ( p(X) & X =\= a1 & ... & X =\= ak)

It doesn't match 100% Prolog since Prolog might
give duplicate answers or non-ground answers,
but assume for the moment the query q(X),

produces only distinct and ground results.
Nice existential FOL formula we have in the above.

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Henri Poincar|- believed that mathematical
and scientific creativity came from a deep,
unconscious intuition that could not be

captured by mechanical reasoning or formal
systems. He famously wrote about how insights
came not from plodding logic but from sudden

illuminations rCo leaps of creative synthesis.

But now we have generative AI rCo models like GPT rCo that:

- produce poetry, proofs, stories, and code,

- combine ideas in novel ways,

- and do so by processing patterns in massive
-a-a datasets, without conscious understanding.

And that does seem to contradict Poincar|-'s belief
that true invention cannot come from automation.

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

But I shouldn't waste too much time.
One shouldn't punish people for just
being plain stupid.

Like for example this clueless french
philosopher who had a lot of troubles
with non-classical logic.

His brain tried to eliminate non-classical
logic, it was keen on avoiding non-classical
logic. A typical species of a human with

an extremly small brain, again working
in the wrong place!

Bye

P.S.: Maybe this a Poincar|- thingy? Poincar|-
was a strong critic of logicism (as championed
by Frege and Russell) and of HilbertrCOs
formalist program.

But, he did not formally use or promote systems
like intuitionistic logic, modal logic, or
relevance logic. His logical framework remained
within the bounds of classical logic,

though he was skeptical of excessive formalism.
He thought formal systems could miss the creative
and synthetic nature of mathematical
invention.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.prolog

Hi,

Does the new DCG standard [2025] say something about
(Semi-)Deep indexing. Are these people even aware,
that practically no Prolog system can execute DCG

in a satisfactory way. And its not a problem of
being declarative or something, or having bared
(\+)/3 or (!)/2 or something.

Its just that (Semi-)Deep indexing is rare, and without
deep indexing DCG degenerte into linear scanning
their clause set. So 20 years elaborating DCG standard.

And still only SWI-Prolog has deep indexing and
can practically takle DCG parsing?

That is extremly cringe...

Bye

P.S.: Disclaimer: Have to double check Ciao Prolog
and ECLiPSe Prolog, could be also a candidate for
deep indexing. Or maybe SICStus Prolog as well.

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

Lets say these semi-deep Prolog argument indexing
will really work. Then I could rollback some
uses of ROKs trick in my DCG based code base,

where I massaged the DCG to have a terminal in
the first argument, and DCG was somehow degraded
in only doing-a the concatenative stuff, through its

monad rewriting. This would lead to elegant code.
But it will not perform on a couple of Prolog systems,
that don't have deep indexing. I suspect the more

elegant code will not perform on these Prolog system:

- GNU Prolog
- Scryer Prolog
- Trealla Prolog
-

I didn't check ECLiPSe Prolog towards deep indexing,
and also I didn't check Ciao Prolog towards deep
indexing yet. It will show good performance:

- SWI-Prolog
- Dogelog Player (if I add semi-deep and skip there)
- Jekejeke Runtime (if I add semi-deep there, it has already skip)
-

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

Today I had an idea, of some semi-deep Prolog
argument indexing. Just because choice point
elimination is so important and has so many

benefits for performance and the end user
experience, like also debugging. And because it is
tied to indexing. An index and the resulting clause

list, which can be always checked for having reached
its end. This gives a look-ahead information to the
Prolog system-a which answers this oracle, concering

clause instantiation:

reaX ( p(X) & X =\= a1 & ... & X =\= ak)

So the idea of semi-deep Prolog argument indexing
would be a hybrid between Scryer Prolog and
SWI-Prolog taking the best of both worls.

It would adopt skip indexes from Scryer Prolog
and deep indexing of SWI-Prolog, but deep indexing
through a Key computation trick. The Key computation

trick is quickly explained.

Normal Key Computations:

p(a, ..)-a-a-a-a-a ~~>-a Computed Key: a/0 or sometimes a alone
p(b(x,y), ..) ~~>-a Computed Key: b/2 or sometimes b alone
Etc..

Semi Deep Key Computation:

p(a, ..)-a-a-a-a-a-a-a ~~>-a Computed Key: 'a'
p([a, ..], ..)-a ~~>-a Computed Key: '.a'
Ect..

Got it?

The Scryer Prolog skip index is needed because
in a DCG the interesting arguments are usually
not the first argument.

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

Now one might ask, if we have a Prolog system
that anyway juggles with choice points, why
would we need a logical formula for choice points?

Well there is a funny correctness criteria,
for example in the top-level, if the top-level
doesn't prompt the end user anymore in such a scenario:

?- p(X).
X = a1 ;
X = a2 ;
...
X = ak-1 ;
X = ak

So the end user is not prompted because the
Prolog system founds CP = []. This is licensed
by this correctness statement for any choice

point elimination:

CP = [] => ~reaX ( p(X) & X =\= a1 & ... & X =\= ak)

Have Fun!

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

Now what does a Prolog system do? Well when
it prompts the end-user it has somewhere
a list of the current query choice points:

CPs = [CP1, CP2, .., CPn]

This is implementation specific, what choice
points a system creates, also the ISO core standard
shows a machine in its more procedural explanation,

that depicts something that has also somewhere
choice points. Since it is implementation specific
a Prolog System A and Prolog System B might

use different choice points:

System A:
CPs = [CP1, CP2, .., CPn]

System B:
CP's = [CP'1, CP'2, .., CP'n]

We say a System B could eliminate a choice point CP,
relative to a System A, if we have:

System A:
CP ree CPs

System B:
CP ree CPs

So System B might have an advantage over System A,
since it will not backtrack over CP.

When it comes to answer substitution display,
it is now very common, that a Prolog system checks
its own choice points, and when it finds that

CP = []

It knows that the query left no choice points,
either because there were never any, because
there was no branching in the executed code, or

because a cut removed branching, or because
they were eliminated somehow. Like through
some index analysis.

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

This is nothing for Bart Demoen, Physics PhD,
academic fraud. The ideal choice point can
be formulated as a logical formula, involving

an existential quantifier. Assume we have
a query and already these answers, and the
Prolog system is prompting the interactive user:

?- p(X).
X = a1 ;
X = a2 ;
...
X = ak-1 ;
X = ak

A mathematical oracle that could indicate whether
it is even necessary to prompt the user could be:

-a-a-a reaX ( p(X) & X =\= a1 & ... & X =\= ak)

It doesn't match 100% Prolog since Prolog might
give duplicate answers or non-ground answers,
but assume for the moment the query q(X),

produces only distinct and ground results.
Nice existential FOL formula we have in the above.

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Henri Poincar|- believed that mathematical
and scientific creativity came from a deep,
unconscious intuition that could not be

captured by mechanical reasoning or formal
systems. He famously wrote about how insights
came not from plodding logic but from sudden

illuminations rCo leaps of creative synthesis.

But now we have generative AI rCo models like GPT rCo that:

- produce poetry, proofs, stories, and code,

- combine ideas in novel ways,

- and do so by processing patterns in massive
-a-a datasets, without conscious understanding.

And that does seem to contradict Poincar|-'s belief
that true invention cannot come from automation.

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

But I shouldn't waste too much time.
One shouldn't punish people for just
being plain stupid.

Like for example this clueless french
philosopher who had a lot of troubles
with non-classical logic.

His brain tried to eliminate non-classical
logic, it was keen on avoiding non-classical
logic. A typical species of a human with

an extremly small brain, again working
in the wrong place!

Bye

P.S.: Maybe this a Poincar|- thingy? Poincar|-
was a strong critic of logicism (as championed
by Frege and Russell) and of HilbertrCOs
formalist program.

But, he did not formally use or promote systems
like intuitionistic logic, modal logic, or
relevance logic. His logical framework remained
within the bounds of classical logic,

though he was skeptical of excessive formalism.
He thought formal systems could miss the creative
and synthetic nature of mathematical
invention.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.prolog

Hi,

So StackOverflow has already fallen, and
GitHub will be the next one. StackOverflow
was eclectic, insuinated a high Signal
quality but repelled its newcomers by
strick language rules and deletism.

StackOverlow is suplaned by ChatGPT, etc..
They are more tolerant and can deliver
excellent Signals, much beter than
StackOverflow. ChatGPT and other assistants
flipped the model: No downvotes.

No rCLduplicate questionrCY shaming. Conversational,
exploratory, and often faster than Googling +
scanning SO threads. Most importantly: they donrCOt
punish incomplete knowledge, which is where
most human learning happens.

LLMs give a more forgiving learning curve.

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Henri Poincar|- believed that mathematical
and scientific creativity came from a deep,
unconscious intuition that could not be

captured by mechanical reasoning or formal
systems. He famously wrote about how insights
came not from plodding logic but from sudden

illuminations rCo leaps of creative synthesis.

But now we have generative AI rCo models like GPT rCo that:

- produce poetry, proofs, stories, and code,

- combine ideas in novel ways,

- and do so by processing patterns in massive
-a datasets, without conscious understanding.

And that does seem to contradict Poincar|-'s belief
that true invention cannot come from automation.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.prolog

Hi,

Why have even a classification of code
into Python, JavaScript, Java, etc.. ?
They are just some form. Not content.

But what is content? The last 30 years
saw it that repository spurred
collaboration, because I can go home
forget everything and next morning, f

irst do a repo refresh and pick a
ticket and dig into something. So the
no code companion repository will do
the same, like it does now.

It will not be solely intent based.
Goals can be highly ambigious. I do
not think the future AGI based repos
will be intent based. They have to grasp

the full BDI, believe desire intent
of their users. So with a cognitive twin,
and some trust, I might even delegate some
work completely or multiply my ego a 100

times an delegate. Delegate to swarm
was always my dream.

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

So StackOverflow has already fallen, and
GitHub will be the next one. StackOverflow
was eclectic, insuinated a high Signal
quality but repelled its newcomers by
strick language rules and deletism.

StackOverlow is suplaned by ChatGPT, etc..
They are more tolerant and can deliver
excellent Signals, much beter than
StackOverflow. ChatGPT and other assistants
flipped the model: No downvotes.

No rCLduplicate questionrCY shaming. Conversational,
exploratory, and often faster than Googling +
scanning SO threads. Most importantly: they donrCOt
punish incomplete knowledge, which is where
most human learning happens.

LLMs give a more forgiving learning curve.

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Henri Poincar|- believed that mathematical
and scientific creativity came from a deep,
unconscious intuition that could not be

captured by mechanical reasoning or formal
systems. He famously wrote about how insights
came not from plodding logic but from sudden

illuminations rCo leaps of creative synthesis.

But now we have generative AI rCo models like GPT rCo that:

- produce poetry, proofs, stories, and code,

- combine ideas in novel ways,

- and do so by processing patterns in massive
-a-a datasets, without conscious understanding.

And that does seem to contradict Poincar|-'s belief
that true invention cannot come from automation.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.prolog

Hi,

Spotting Trojan Horses is a nice example
of creativity that also needs ground truth.
Gian-Carlo Rota was phamous for this truth:

"The lack of understanding of the simplest
facts of mathematics among philosophers
is appalling."

You can extend it to GitHub acrobats,
paper mill balerinas and internet trolls.
But mathematics itself had a hard time,

allowing other objects than numbers:

- Blissard's symbolic method
He was primarily an applied mathematician and
school inspector. His symbolic method was a way
to represent and manipulate sequences algebraically
using formal symbols.

- Gian-Carlo Rota (in the 1970s)
Gian-Carlo Rota (in the 1970s) gave BlissardrCOs
symbolic method a rigorous algebraic foundation. Rota
admired the symbolic reasoning of 19th-century mathematicians
and often described it as having a rCLmagicalrCY or rCLmysticalrCY
elegance rCo again hinting at interpretive, almost poetic, qualities.

- Umbral calculus
Modern formalization of this method, often involving
linear operators and algebraic structures. "Umbral"
means rCLshadowrCY rCo the power-like expressions are
symbolic shadows of actual algebra.

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Henri Poincar|- believed that mathematical
and scientific creativity came from a deep,
unconscious intuition that could not be

captured by mechanical reasoning or formal
systems. He famously wrote about how insights
came not from plodding logic but from sudden

illuminations rCo leaps of creative synthesis.

But now we have generative AI rCo models like GPT rCo that:

- produce poetry, proofs, stories, and code,

- combine ideas in novel ways,

- and do so by processing patterns in massive
-a datasets, without conscious understanding.

And that does seem to contradict Poincar|-'s belief
that true invention cannot come from automation.

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

But I shouldn't waste too much time.
One shouldn't punish people for just
being plain stupid.

Like for example this clueless french
philosopher who had a lot of troubles
with non-classical logic.

His brain tried to eliminate non-classical
logic, it was keen on avoiding non-classical
logic. A typical species of a human with

an extremly small brain, again working
in the wrong place!

Bye

P.S.: Maybe this a Poincar|- thingy? Poincar|-
was a strong critic of logicism (as championed
by Frege and Russell) and of HilbertrCOs
formalist program.

But, he did not formally use or promote systems
like intuitionistic logic, modal logic, or
relevance logic. His logical framework remained
within the bounds of classical logic,

though he was skeptical of excessive formalism.
He thought formal systems could miss the creative
and synthetic nature of mathematical
invention.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2