From Newsgroup: comp.lang.prolog

Hi,

Take this egg drop example:

:- table(drop/3).
drop(0, _, R) :- !, R = 0.
drop(_, 0, R) :- !, R = 0.
drop(F, 1, R) :- !, R = F.
drop(F, E, M) :- E > 1, F > 0,
aggregate_all(min(N), (between(1,F,K),
E2 is E-1,
F1 is K-1,
drop(F1, E2, N1),
F2 is F-K,
drop(F2, E, N2),
N is 1+max(N1,N2)), M).

My results so far:

/* SWI, XSB and Dogelog */
?- drop(100, 10, X).
X = 7.

/* Scryer */
?- drop(100,10,X).
false.

Why does Scryer Prolog fail?

Bye

BTW: I used this polyfill:

aggregate_all(min(N), G, M) :-
findall(N, G, [X|L]),
min_list(L, X, M).

min_list([], M, M).
min_list([X|L], Y, M) :-
Z is min(X,Y),
min_list(L, Z, M).

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

During my quick brainstorming on SWI-Prolog
discourse concerning my library(markup) I worte:

Disclaimer: I didn’t look into Trealla, Scryer
or Ciao, what they support in this respect.
I only had a look at SWISH and their concept of
answer substitutions filters. I find this too
restrictive, already the library(turtle) cannot
be done in this setting.

So my subc-consciousness told me there is nothing
useful to expect from Trealla, Scryer or Ciao.
Since they are total web virgins, probably never

seen a DOM API and/or never generated production
webpages. For example this could be abused, not
something that should be promoted:

document.write(`<p>Sudoku solver returns:</p><pre>${result}</pre>`);

https://github.com/mthom/scryer-prolog?tab=readme-ov-file#building-webassembly

Not only is the document.write() method deprecated.
The document.write() method directly injects HTML
into the page. This leads to XSS vulnerability:

During the second half of 2007, XSSed documented

11,253 site-specific cross-site vulnerabilities,
compared to 2,134 "traditional" vulnerabilities
documented by Symantec. XSS effects vary in range from
petty nuisance to significant security risk, depending
on the sensitivity of the data handled by the vulnerable
site and the nature of any security mitigation
implemented by the site's owner network. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-site_scripting

Bye

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.prolog

Hi,

The Latin cogito, ergo sum, usually translated
into English as "I think, therefore I am",[a]
is the "first principle" of the philosophy of
the French scientist and philosopher René Descartes.

The new CogitoAI System features explanation
compression using the motto:

**********************************************
Search First, Explain Later
**********************************************

Its very easy to implement, and based on intuitionist
logic Curry Howard exists witness terms, a rule:

P(X, Y) :- Q(X, Z), R(Z, Y).

Is transformed into, combining existential and conjunction:

P(X, Y, rule(Z, S, T)) :- Q(X, Z, S), R(Z, Y, T).

So the search will only return the compressed form
you can later generate fancy trees, with fact
prevenance, rule references, coloring, bells and

whistles. Dunno, just an idea based on:

formalise existential quantification by
declaring a suitable record type https://plfa.github.io/Quantifiers/#existentials

LoL

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

Take this egg drop example:

:- table(drop/3).
drop(0, _, R) :- !, R = 0.
drop(_, 0, R) :- !, R = 0.
drop(F, 1, R) :- !, R = F.
drop(F, E, M) :- E > 1, F > 0,
   aggregate_all(min(N), (between(1,F,K),
       E2 is E-1,
       F1 is K-1,
       drop(F1, E2, N1),
       F2 is F-K,
       drop(F2, E, N2),
       N is 1+max(N1,N2)), M).

My results so far:

/* SWI, XSB and Dogelog */
?- drop(100, 10, X).
X = 7.

/* Scryer */
?- drop(100,10,X).
   false.

Why does Scryer Prolog fail?

Bye

BTW: I used this polyfill:

aggregate_all(min(N), G, M) :-
   findall(N, G, [X|L]),
   min_list(L, X, M).

min_list([], M, M).
min_list([X|L], Y, M) :-
   Z is min(X,Y),
   min_list(L, Z, M).

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

During my quick brainstorming on SWI-Prolog
discourse concerning my library(markup) I worte:

Disclaimer: I didn’t look into Trealla, Scryer
or Ciao, what they support in this respect.
I only had a look at SWISH and their concept of
answer substitutions filters. I find this too
restrictive, already the library(turtle) cannot
be done in this setting.

So my subc-consciousness told me there is nothing
useful to expect from Trealla, Scryer or Ciao.
Since they are total web virgins, probably never

seen a DOM API and/or never generated production
webpages. For example this could be abused, not
something that should be promoted:

document.write(`<p>Sudoku solver returns:</p><pre>${result}</pre>`);

https://github.com/mthom/scryer-prolog?tab=readme-ov-file#building-webassembly


Not only is the document.write() method deprecated.
The document.write() method directly injects HTML
into the page. This leads to XSS vulnerability:

During the second half of 2007, XSSed documented

11,253 site-specific cross-site vulnerabilities,
compared to 2,134 "traditional" vulnerabilities
documented by Symantec. XSS effects vary in range from
petty nuisance to significant security risk, depending
on the sensitivity of the data handled by the vulnerable
site and the nature of any security mitigation
implemented by the site's owner network.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-site_scripting

Bye

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.prolog

Hi,

What happened recently? They all run on low fuel
CPU ( GPU / TPU ) now. Have to explain:

∀X∀Y∀Z (Q(X,Z) ∧ R(Z,Y) → P(X,Y)) is equivalent to:

∀X∀Y∀Z (~(Q(X,Z) ∧ R(Z,Y)) v P(X,Y)) is equivalent to:

∀X∀Y (∀Z ~(Q(X,Z) ∧ R(Z,Y)) v P(X,Y)) is equivalent to:

∀X∀Y (~∃Z (Q(X,Z) ∧ R(Z,Y)) v P(X,Y)) is equivalent to:

∀X∀Y (∃Z (Q(X,Z) ∧ R(Z,Y)) → P(X,Y))

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

The Latin cogito, ergo sum, usually translated
into English as "I think, therefore I am",[a]
is the "first principle" of the philosophy of
the French scientist and philosopher René Descartes.

The new CogitoAI System features explanation
compression using the motto:

**********************************************
Search First, Explain Later
**********************************************

Its very easy to implement, and based on intuitionist
logic Curry Howard exists witness terms, a rule:

P(X, Y) :- Q(X, Z), R(Z, Y).

Is transformed into, combining existential and conjunction:

P(X, Y, rule(Z, S, T)) :- Q(X, Z, S), R(Z, Y, T).

So the search will only return the compressed form
you can later generate fancy trees, with fact
prevenance, rule references, coloring, bells and

whistles. Dunno, just an idea based on:

formalise existential quantification by
declaring a suitable record type https://plfa.github.io/Quantifiers/#existentials

LoL

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

Take this egg drop example:

:- table(drop/3).
drop(0, _, R) :- !, R = 0.
drop(_, 0, R) :- !, R = 0.
drop(F, 1, R) :- !, R = F.
drop(F, E, M) :- E > 1, F > 0,
    aggregate_all(min(N), (between(1,F,K),
        E2 is E-1,
        F1 is K-1,
        drop(F1, E2, N1),
        F2 is F-K,
        drop(F2, E, N2),
        N is 1+max(N1,N2)), M).

My results so far:

/* SWI, XSB and Dogelog */
?- drop(100, 10, X).
X = 7.

/* Scryer */
?- drop(100,10,X).
    false.

Why does Scryer Prolog fail?

Bye

BTW: I used this polyfill:

aggregate_all(min(N), G, M) :-
    findall(N, G, [X|L]),
    min_list(L, X, M).

min_list([], M, M).
min_list([X|L], Y, M) :-
    Z is min(X,Y),
    min_list(L, Z, M).

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

During my quick brainstorming on SWI-Prolog
discourse concerning my library(markup) I worte:

Disclaimer: I didn’t look into Trealla, Scryer
or Ciao, what they support in this respect.
I only had a look at SWISH and their concept of
answer substitutions filters. I find this too
restrictive, already the library(turtle) cannot
be done in this setting.

So my subc-consciousness told me there is nothing
useful to expect from Trealla, Scryer or Ciao.
Since they are total web virgins, probably never

seen a DOM API and/or never generated production
webpages. For example this could be abused, not
something that should be promoted:

document.write(`<p>Sudoku solver returns:</p><pre>${result}</pre>`);

https://github.com/mthom/scryer-prolog?tab=readme-ov-file#building-webassembly


Not only is the document.write() method deprecated.
The document.write() method directly injects HTML
into the page. This leads to XSS vulnerability:

During the second half of 2007, XSSed documented

11,253 site-specific cross-site vulnerabilities,
compared to 2,134 "traditional" vulnerabilities
documented by Symantec. XSS effects vary in range from
petty nuisance to significant security risk, depending
on the sensitivity of the data handled by the vulnerable
site and the nature of any security mitigation
implemented by the site's owner network.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-site_scripting

Bye

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.prolog

Hi,

Why even go into the hussle to store anything.
If you have Q and R anyways tabled? You can go
with your answer X and Y, into this subquery,

and choose an arbitrary Z:

∃Z (Q(X,Z) ∧ R(Z,Y))

As your explanation. And do this recursively.
This would be the original gangster (OG) of.
Its basically the "wait, let me explain":

**********************************************
Search First, Explain Later
**********************************************

This is what cognitive science told us already
for years, Consciousness is only a "hick up".
Well you have to be quick, its really only "hick up".

If the tabling gets flushed it doesn't
work so easily anymore.

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

What happened recently? They all run on low fuel
CPU ( GPU / TPU ) now. Have to explain:

∀X∀Y∀Z (Q(X,Z) ∧ R(Z,Y) → P(X,Y)) is equivalent to:

∀X∀Y∀Z (~(Q(X,Z) ∧ R(Z,Y)) v P(X,Y))  is equivalent to:

∀X∀Y (∀Z ~(Q(X,Z) ∧ R(Z,Y)) v P(X,Y))  is equivalent to:

∀X∀Y (~∃Z (Q(X,Z) ∧ R(Z,Y)) v P(X,Y))  is equivalent to:

∀X∀Y (∃Z (Q(X,Z) ∧ R(Z,Y)) → P(X,Y))

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

The Latin cogito, ergo sum, usually translated
into English as "I think, therefore I am",[a]
is the "first principle" of the philosophy of
the French scientist and philosopher René Descartes.

The new CogitoAI System features explanation
compression using the motto:

**********************************************
Search First, Explain Later
**********************************************

Its very easy to implement, and based on intuitionist
logic Curry Howard exists witness terms, a rule:

P(X, Y) :- Q(X, Z), R(Z, Y).

Is transformed into, combining existential and conjunction:

P(X, Y, rule(Z, S, T)) :- Q(X, Z, S), R(Z, Y, T).

So the search will only return the compressed form
you can later generate fancy trees, with fact
prevenance, rule references, coloring, bells and

whistles. Dunno, just an idea based on:

formalise existential quantification by
declaring a suitable record type
https://plfa.github.io/Quantifiers/#existentials

LoL

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

Take this egg drop example:

:- table(drop/3).
drop(0, _, R) :- !, R = 0.
drop(_, 0, R) :- !, R = 0.
drop(F, 1, R) :- !, R = F.
drop(F, E, M) :- E > 1, F > 0,
    aggregate_all(min(N), (between(1,F,K),
        E2 is E-1,
        F1 is K-1,
        drop(F1, E2, N1),
        F2 is F-K,
        drop(F2, E, N2),
        N is 1+max(N1,N2)), M).

My results so far:

/* SWI, XSB and Dogelog */
?- drop(100, 10, X).
X = 7.

/* Scryer */
?- drop(100,10,X).
    false.

Why does Scryer Prolog fail?

Bye

BTW: I used this polyfill:

aggregate_all(min(N), G, M) :-
    findall(N, G, [X|L]),
    min_list(L, X, M).

min_list([], M, M).
min_list([X|L], Y, M) :-
    Z is min(X,Y),
    min_list(L, Z, M).

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

During my quick brainstorming on SWI-Prolog
discourse concerning my library(markup) I worte:

Disclaimer: I didn’t look into Trealla, Scryer
or Ciao, what they support in this respect.
I only had a look at SWISH and their concept of
answer substitutions filters. I find this too
restrictive, already the library(turtle) cannot
be done in this setting.

So my subc-consciousness told me there is nothing
useful to expect from Trealla, Scryer or Ciao.
Since they are total web virgins, probably never

seen a DOM API and/or never generated production
webpages. For example this could be abused, not
something that should be promoted:

document.write(`<p>Sudoku solver returns:</p><pre>${result}</pre>`);

https://github.com/mthom/scryer-prolog?tab=readme-ov-file#building-webassembly


Not only is the document.write() method deprecated.
The document.write() method directly injects HTML
into the page. This leads to XSS vulnerability:

During the second half of 2007, XSSed documented

11,253 site-specific cross-site vulnerabilities,
compared to 2,134 "traditional" vulnerabilities
documented by Symantec. XSS effects vary in range from
petty nuisance to significant security risk, depending
on the sensitivity of the data handled by the vulnerable
site and the nature of any security mitigation
implemented by the site's owner network.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-site_scripting

Bye

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2