SCI.LOGIC is a STAGNANT CESS PITT of LOSERS!

[Graham Cooper]

FROM AXIOMS you DERIVE THEOREMS!

Nobody CARES if SomeModel |= 'this is not derivable from your
axioms"

looks TRUE!

IT's not DERIVABLE FROM THE AXIOMS! END OF STORY!

Nothing Mathematically INCOMPLETE ABOUT IT!

LOGIC is an ARTS DEGREE on SLAGGING OFF COMPUTER PROGRAMMERS because
you PROVED YOURSELVES STUPID!

1 Godel proved LOGIC DOESNT WORK!
2 Everyone FELL FOR IT for 100 years
3 Literacy Students took up volumes of texts on logic

and Swamped any discussion with THAT WONT WORK because "TEACHER IS
RIGHT" arguments!

Any and All mathematical logicians posting to SCI.LOGIC have all been
verbally abused 100, 1000 times or more until they all left.

Me included.


******************


www.microPROLOG.com

A FORMAL SYSTEM WRITTEN PURELY IN PREDICATES!


f(0).
t(1).
t(X) :- f(f(X)).
wff(X) :- t(X).
wff(X) :- f(X).

what(X,true) :- t(X).
what(X,false) :- f(X).
t(if(X,Y)) :- t(X), t(Y).
t(if(X,Y)) :- f(X), f(Y).
t(if(X,Y)) :- f(X), t(Y).
t(or(X,Y)) :- t(X).
t(or(X,Y)) :- t(Y).
t(and(X,Y)) :- t(X),t(Y).
t(iff(X,Y)) :- t(X),t(Y).
t(iff(X,Y)) :- f(X),f(Y).
t(xor(X,Y)) :- t(X),f(Y).
t(xor(X,Y)) :- f(X),t(Y).
f(if(X,Y)) :- t(X),f(Y).
f(or(X,Y)) :- f(X),f(Y).
f(and(X,Y)) :- f(X).
f(and(X,Y)) :- f(Y).
f(iff(X,Y)) :- t(X),f(Y).
f(iff(X,Y)) :- f(X),t(Y).
f(xor(X,Y)) :- t(X),t(Y).
f(xor(X,Y)) :- f(X),f(Y).

RESOLUTION
or(R,Q) :- if(L,R), or(L,Q).
or(R,Q) :- if(L,R), or(Q,L).
or(Q,R) :- if(L,R), or(L,Q).
or(Q,R) :- if(L,R), or(Q,L).

MODUS PONENS
t(R) :- if(L,R), t(L).
t(R) :- or(f(L),R), t(L).
t(R) :- or(R,f(L)), t(L).

INFERENCE RULES
if( if(t(S),f(R)) , if(t(R),f(S)) ).



-----------------------

On Oct 31, 12:13 am, Gary Forbis wrote:
> -? wff(if(1,0))
> having found wff(X) :- t(X).
> wants to evaluate t(if(1,0)).
> having found t(if(X,Y)) :- if(X,Y).
> wants to evaluate if(1,0).
> having found if(X,Y) := t(X), t(Y).
> wants to evalueate t(1).
> Find t(1)
> RETURNS success.
> wants to evaluate t(0).
> RETURNS failure.
> wants to evaluate t(if(if(1,0),Y) :- if(if(1,0),Y)
> wants to evaluate if(1,0)
> ...

Only 1 other capable mathematical logician here!

[Mark Thorson]

If you respond to this crap, please delete sci.chem
from the inappropriate followup newsgroups. Thank you.

[Graham Cooper]

On Nov 18, 3:17 am, George Greene <gree...@email.unc.edu> wrote:

> On Nov 17, 3:50 am, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >www.microPROLOG.com
>
> > A FORMAL SYSTEM WRITTEN PURELY IN PREDICATES!
>
> > f(0).
> > t(1).
> > t(X) :- f(f(X)).
> > wff(X) :- t(X).
> > wff(X) :- f(X).
>

> There is NOTHING "micro" about this!
> Prolog ALREADY EXISTS!  It's ALREADY WRITTEN!
> It ALREADY DOES THIS!


Does not!


> All YOU are doing is ADDING SOMETHING ON TOP of a system that IS
> ALREADY MUCH BIGGER than "micro"!
>
> Prolog ALREADY KNOWS what a WFF looks like!
> Prolog ALREADY HAS "," for and and ";" for or!
>
> You are not SHRINKING anything DOWN to "micro" by ADDING LONGER
> versions of what IS ALREADY there!
>


It's a 2 logic value language (resolution capable)
written in a 1 logic value language (successful-match / negation-as-
failure)

Just because I haven't finished it yet, i.e. you just type in a
formula and it proves it doesn't mean it's old hat.

IT HAS [FALSE] GEORGE! [NOT]

?- or ( if(1,0) , if(1,X) ).
X = 1

YOU DON'T HAVE ANY SOFTWARE THAT DOES THIS IN A 4GL!


Herc

[Graham Cooper]

On Nov 18, 3:11 am, George Greene <gree...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
> > IT's not DERIVABLE FROM THE AXIOMS!   END OF STORY!
>

> That's NOT the end of the story!
>
> It is true that the name of the room is "sci.logic" and that WE


No George, it's a SIGN ON THE DOOR.

There is nothing scientific per se going on in this newsgroup.

Citing a Library of 20TH Century Logic because proofs are meant to be
eternal is just 1 scientific method and with poor utility at that.

IF YOU KEEP SPOUTING "THIS IS SCI.LOGIC"

THEN STATE THE SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY USED HERE!

Because Proof by Assumption THEN Contradiction
certainly is NEVER practiced by anyone here.

Herc

[Hercules ofZeus]

> MATHEMATICS
> E(Y) Y={x|P(x)}  <->  PRVBLE( E(Y) Y={x|P(x)} )
> PRVBLE(T) <-> NOT(DERIVE(NOT(T)))

It amazes me to this day not one LOGICIAN online can fathom this
definition of provable!

NOT(PROVABLE(T)) <-> DERIVE(NOT(T))


Herc

[Hercules ofZeus]

> On Nov 18, 3:17 am, George Greene <gree...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
> > All YOU are doing is ADDING SOMETHING ON TOP of a system that IS
> > ALREADY MUCH BIGGER than "micro"!
>

> > You are not SHRINKING anything DOWN to "micro" by ADDING LONGER
> > versions of what IS ALREADY there!
>

No! This is where mathematics, logic, A.I. and computation separated
in 1972 when PROLOG came out.

the error??

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


LISP! THEY TACKED LISP ONTO PROLOG!

In order to program

WHAT ARE THE MOONS OF SATURN?

moons( earth, moon ).
moons( mars, phoebos ).
moons( saturn, titan ).
moons( saturn, h20 ).
...


You have to CONVERT THAT RELATION TO A LIST!!!

list(moons,BAGOF(moons(saturn,X))))

It was IMMENSELY COMPLICATED and SQL came about with 1 line.

SELECT PLANET, MOON FROM TMOONS

.
.
.

there is just 1 algorithm with PROLOG

UNIFY ( f(a,B) , f(Z,g) ).

CAN YOU WORK OUT THE RESULTANT FUNCTION GEORGE?


...

Unfortunely UNIFY(F1,F2) is so powerful, you dont even NEED any
commands though they added 500 3GL commands to PROLOG.

Unfortuenatly UNIFY() is so powerful it doubles as a PROGRAMMING
LANGUAGE PARAMETER STACK AND FETCH CYCLE which is all people used it
for! Nothing 4GL was ever programmed in PROLOG!

microPROLOG is a SHELL OVER SQL.

SELECT ID, REF FROM TTAILS, TPRO
WHERE TTAILS.ID = TPRO.ID
AND TTAILS.REF = TPRO.REF
GROUP BY COUNT(ID)
ORDER BY ID DEDC

This is IMMENSELY FASTER, BINARY INDEXES BUILT IN, can handle 1
BILLION RECORDS on a standard Server.

This is a BREAKTHOUGH ITERATIVE UNIFY ALGORITHM

but you are all too self absorbed to understand how to use a data
structure of predicates.

A QUERY

?- vert ( pnt( 1,2 ) pnt( 1,4 ) )

This will be
ID REF FIELD TYP
=================
1 11 vert H
1 12 pnt P
1 13 pnt P
1 121 1 T
1 122 2 T
1 131 1 T
1 132 4 T


THE RULE INSTANTLY FOUND WITH SQL.

vert ( pnt( X,Y ) pnt( X,Z ) )

ID REF FIELD TYP
=================
21 11 vert H
21 12 pnt P
21 13 pnt P
21 121 X V
21 122 Y V
21 131 X V
21 132 Z V



Herc
--
www.microPROLOG.com

[George Greene]

On Nov 17, 3:47 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 18, 3:17 am, George Greene <gree...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 17, 3:50 am, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >www.microPROLOG.com
>

> > There is NOTHING "micro" about this!
> > Prolog ALREADY EXISTS!  It's ALREADY WRITTEN!
> > It ALREADY DOES THIS!
>
> Does not!

I have done some programming in Prolog.
I have graded coursework in it. I WOULD know.

> It's a 2 logic value language (resolution capable)
> written in a 1 logic value language (successful-match / negation-as-
> failure)

Oh, PLEASE.
NOBODY NEEDS TO UPGRADE Prolog from negation-as-failure to the real
thing.
That IS NOT what it's FOR!

>
> YOU DON'T HAVE ANY SOFTWARE THAT DOES THIS IN A 4GL!

Again, bullshit. Plenty of people have written theorem-provers.
That is A SIMPLE program. Hell, Resolution BY ITSELF is complete.
If you can write a program that can perform all the possible
resolutions on a finite
set of axioms THEN YOU ARE DONE. It is horrendously inefficient and
of NO practical use
BUT IT IS COMPLETE if the system is finitely axiomatizable.

[Graham Cooper]

On Nov 18, 10:13 am, George Greene <gree...@email.unc.edu> wrote:


I'm going to snip all your posts at your first lie from now on.

Herc