Avoid the cheap tricks by Scryer Prolog (Was: What WG17 could do to prevent segregation [DEC-10 Prolog (10 November 1982)])

I don’t know, I would try to get out of the
cornering that Scryer Prolog and Trealla Prolog
tries to do with cheap tricks like this here,
which library(portray_text) will probably
/* Scryer Prolog 0.9.4-411 */
?- "٢١٠" = [H|T]. /* [0x0662, 0x0661, 0x0660] */
    H = '٢', T = "١٠".
never attempt for codes, but might easily do
for chars. It has currently only implemented:
/* SWI-Prolog 9.3.24 */
text_code(Code) :-
     is_text_code(Code),
     !.
text_code(9).      % horizontal tab, \t
text_code(10).     % newline \n
text_code(13).     % carriage return \r
text_code(C) :-    % space to tilde (127 is DEL)
     between(32, 126, C).
And a greater range might really start getting into the
way in working with lists that carry numbers.
My guess SWI-Prolog could position its self as dual use.
Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,
 What WG17 could do to prevent segregation.
It could specify:
 - The back_quotes flag. Not really something
   new , most Prolog systems have it already.
 - The [X] evaluable function. Not really something
   new , most Prolog systems have it already. For
   example DEC-10 Prolog (10 November 1982) had it
   already, The new thing for some Prolog systems
   would be its non-strict evaluation strategy
   and the dual use:
   [X] (a list of just one element) evaluates to X if X is an
  integer. Since a quoted string is just a list of integers,
  this allows a quoted character to be used in place of its
  ASCII code; e.g. "A" behaves within arithmetic expressions
  as the integer 65.
 https://userweb.fct.unl.pt/~lmp/publications/online-papers/DECsystem-10%20PROLOG%20USER%27S%20MANUAL.pdf   Instead what is WG17 doing?
 - Introducing a notation for open strings:
     [a, b, c|X] = "abc" || X
    With a new separator ||, giving possibly much more
   headache to Prolog system implementors than a flag
   and an evaluable function.
 Bye
 Mild Shock schrieb:

Oops should read:
>
0'0 =< [C], [C] =< 0'9, Digit is [C]-0'0`.
>
Mild Shock schrieb:

What is holy is only for Dogelog Player!
>
Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not
throw your pearls before pigs, lest they
trample them underfoot and turn to attack you.
-- Matthew 7:6
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207%3A6
>
I have deleted my posts and the swi2.pl.log proposal:
>
between(C, 0'0, 0'9), Digit is C-0'0.`
>
Just rewrite it to:
>
0'0 =< [Digit], [Digit] =< 0'9, [Digit] is C-0'0`.
>
The [X] in an evaluation is dual use again:
>
?- X is [a].
X = 97.
>
?- X is [0'a].
X = 97.
>
>
Mild Shock schrieb:

>
Inductive logic programming at 30
https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.10556
>
The paper contains not a single reference to autoencoders!
Still they show this example:
>
Fig. 1 ILP systems struggle with structured examples that
exhibit observational noise. All three examples clearly
spell the word "ILP", with some alterations: 3 noisy pixels,
shifted and elongated letters. If we would be to learn a
program that simply draws "ILP" in the middle of the picture,
without noisy pixels and elongated letters, that would
be a correct program.
>
I guess ILP is 30 years behind the AI boom. An early autoencoder
turned into transformer was already reported here (*):
>
SERIAL ORDER, Michael I. Jordan - May 1986
https://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~gary/PAPER-SUGGESTIONS/Jordan-TR-8604-OCRed.pdf >
>
Well ILP might have its merits, maybe we should not ask
for a marriage of LLM and Prolog, but Autoencoders and ILP.
But its tricky, I am still trying to decode the da Vinci code of
>
things like stacked tensors, are they related to k-literal clauses?
The paper I referenced is found in this excellent video:
>
The Making of ChatGPT (35 Year History)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFS90-FX6pg
>

>

>