Re: Is Scryer Prologs failure measurable? (Was: Holy Grail makes People Disappear)

Hi,
How many years does Scryer Prolog allocate to
make a turn around? Lets say we have an explosion
of new tickets at the beginning, so the new tickets
history might have this time functions, plus
some parameters that scale it:
n(t) = 1 - exp(-t)
And lets say tickets are closed at a constant
speed, like in this fuction:
c(t) = t
Again c(t) has some parameters not shown, to
scale it. But essently the project is
completed when this one reaches zero:
f(t) = n(t) - c(t)
What can go wrong? Basically onec critical thing
is c(t). If you don't have solutions or resources,
c(t) might look very different, and a zero
might never be reached.
Bye
Mild Shock schrieb:

 Just look at GitHub issues and sort by "recent update".
I get for the last week the following figures:
 - New tickets: 7 new tickets
- Closed tickets: 2 closed tickets
 To get a turn around you the the 2nd number bigger
that the 1st number, and not the other way around.
 Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,
>
I remember Robert Stärk's disappearing from
academic life at ETH Zurich all of a sudden.
Did Ulrich Neumerkel now also disappeared not
>
because the Scryer Prolog disaster, but after
he figured out that failure slices are not hip
enought? What could be more hip, are the modalities
>
of Robert Stärk's logic more hip now and even useful?
>
Automated Theorem Proving for Prolog Verification
Fred Mesnard etc.. May 2024
https://lim.univ-reunion.fr/staff/fred/Publications/24-MesnardMP-slides.pdf >
>
Disclaimer: I am not deep into this theory,
it has some ingredients that were floating around
the 80's / 80's, not only in the millieau of ETH Zurich,
>
but also in the vincinity of Gehard Jaeger, Bern.
There are many alternative formalizations that
can express termination etc.. But maybe LPTP is
>
especially suited for Prolog?