Liste des Groupes | Revenir à s logic |
On 5/29/2024 3:25 AM, Mikko wrote:It does not expose any flaw in classical logic. Flaws in yourOn 2024-05-28 14:59:30 +0000, olcott said:It correctly determines that there is a cycle in the directed graph
On 5/28/2024 1:59 AM, Mikko wrote:Prolog does not reject LP = not(true(LP)). It can accept it asOn 2024-05-27 14:34:14 +0000, olcott said:That Prolog construes any expression having the same structure as the
?- LP = not(true(LP)).The words "not" and "true" of Prolog are meaningful in some contexts
LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
false.
In other words Prolog has detected a cycle in the directed graph of the
evaluation sequence of the structure of the Liar Paradox. Experts seem
to think that Prolog is taking "not" and "true" as meaningless and is
only evaluating the structure of the expression.
but not above. The word "true" is meaningful only when it has no arguments.
Liar Paradox as having a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation
sequence already completely proves my point. In other words Prolog
is saying that there is something wrong with the expression and it must
be rejected.
You could tryYes exactly. If I knew that Prolog did this then I would not have
?- LP = not(true(LP), true(LP).
or
?- LP = not(true(LP), not(true(LP)).
The predicate unify_with_occurs_check checks whether the resulting
sructure is acyclic because that is its purpose. Whether a simple
created Minimal Type Theory that does this same thing. That I did
create MTT that does do this same thing makes my understanding much
deeper.
syntactically valid. Thaat unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))
fails does not mean anything except when it is used, and then it
does not reject but simplu evaluates to false, just like 1 = 2
is false but not erroneous.
of the evaluation sequence of the expression, which is like an
infinite loop in a program.
You can understand this or fail to understand this, disagreement is
incorrect. If you have any disagreement then please back up your
claims with proof.
It is relevant to sci.logic in that it exposes fundamental flawsNot necessarily. What happes depends on the implementation and on whatunification like LP = not(true(LP)) does same is implementationISO Prolog implementations have the built-in predicate
dependent as Prolog rules permit but do not require that. In a
typical implementation a simple unification does not check for
cycles.
unify_with_occurs_check/2 for sound unification
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occurs_check#Sound_unification
Alternatively such expressions crash or remain stuck in infinite loops.
you do with such structures. You already saw that your
?- LP = not(true(LP)).
does not crash and does not remain stuck in infinite loop.
If you want to talk nore about Prolog do it in comp.lang.prolog.Anyway, none of this is relevant to the topic of this thread or
topics of sci.logic.
with classical logic.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.