Why tuck the tail in front of a false Messias (Was: Avoid the cheap tricks by Scryer Prolog)

My guess SWI-Prolog could position its self as
dual use. If it is not going dual use and as a
Prolog system that is supposed to lead the way
in teaching, it might only add to the segregation
and confusion among Prolog systems. Of course people
like Markus Triska try to position themselves
as teachers and messias of Prolog. Why tuck the tail?
Mild Shock schrieb:

 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
>

>

>

>