Re: The solver does not terminate

Liste des GroupesRevenir à s logic 
Sujet : Re: The solver does not terminate
De : julio (at) *nospam* diegidio.name (Julio Di Egidio)
Groupes : sci.logic
Date : 06. Dec 2024, 15:57:42
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <viv3d6$2bkfm$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 05/12/2024 22:26, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
On 02/12/2024 12:37, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
On 02/12/2024 09:49, Mild Shock wrote:
Could it be that your procedure doesn't
terminate always? Why is this not finished
after more than 1 minute?
>
The solver *is* very slow at the moment, and you are trying to prove a too complicated statement:
>
```
?- unfold(tnt((p<->(q<->r))<->(p<->q)), Qs).
Qs = ((((p->(q->r)/\(r->q))/\((q->r)/\(r->q)->p)->(p->q)/\(q->p))/\((p->q)/\(q->p)->(p->(q->r)/\(r->q))/\((q->r)/\(r->q)->p))->0)->(((p->(q->r)/\(r->q))/\((q->r)/\(r->q)->p)->(p->q)/\(q->p))/\((p->q)/\(q->p)->(p->(q->r)/\(r->q))/\((q->r)/\(r->q)->p))->0)->0).
```
 Yeah, there is definitely a bug, though unrelated to TNT: the reduction rules are applied in the order of definition, and I can confirm that, depending on that order, the solver may not terminate.
 Would you think there is an order that works?  Otherwise it gets complicated...
It's slowly dawning on me what might be going wrong: I have proved that reductions decrease the goal size *for each residual goal*, but each reduction may produce more than one residual goal, and I have not proved that the proof search will not keep branching indefinitely...
-Julio

Date Sujet#  Auteur
1 Dec 24 * Still on negative translation for substructural logics53Julio Di Egidio
1 Dec 24 +* Re: Still on negative translation for substructural logics19Mild Shock
1 Dec 24 i`* intuitionistic vs. classical implication in Prolog code (Was: Still on negative translation for substructural logics)18Mild Shock
1 Dec 24 i +* Re: intuitionistic vs. classical implication in Prolog code (Was: Still on negative translation for substructural logics)3Mild Shock
1 Dec 24 i i`* Girards Exponentiation after Dragalins Implication (Was: intuitionistic vs. classical implication in Prolog code)2Mild Shock
1 Dec 24 i i `- Does Jens Ottens Int-Prover also do the Repeat? (Was: Girards Exponentiation after Dragalins Implication)1Mild Shock
1 Dec 24 i `* Re: intuitionistic vs. classical implication in Prolog code14Julio Di Egidio
1 Dec 24 i  `* Re: intuitionistic vs. classical implication in Prolog code13Mild Shock
1 Dec 24 i   +- Re: intuitionistic vs. classical implication in Prolog code1Mild Shock
1 Dec 24 i   `* Re: intuitionistic vs. classical implication in Prolog code11Julio Di Egidio
1 Dec 24 i    +- Re: intuitionistic vs. classical implication in Prolog code1Ross Finlayson
2 Dec 24 i    +- Re: intuitionistic vs. classical implication in Prolog code1Mild Shock
2 Dec 24 i    `* Re: intuitionistic vs. classical implication in Prolog code8Mild Shock
2 Dec 24 i     `* Re: intuitionistic vs. classical implication in Prolog code7Mild Shock
2 Dec 24 i      `* Re: intuitionistic vs. classical implication in Prolog code6Julio Di Egidio
3 Dec 24 i       `* Re: intuitionistic vs. classical implication in Prolog code5Mild Shock
3 Dec 24 i        +* Re: intuitionistic vs. classical implication in Prolog code3Mild Shock
3 Dec 24 i        i`* Re: intuitionistic vs. classical implication in Prolog code2Mild Shock
3 Dec 24 i        i `- Re: intuitionistic vs. classical implication in Prolog code1Ross Finlayson
3 Dec 24 i        `- Re: intuitionistic vs. classical implication in Prolog code1Julio Di Egidio
2 Dec 24 +* Re: Still on negative translation for substructural logics25Mild Shock
2 Dec 24 i+* Re: Still on negative translation for substructural logics2Mild Shock
2 Dec 24 ii`- Re: Still on negative translation for substructural logics1Mild Shock
2 Dec 24 i+* Re: Still on negative translation for substructural logics20Julio Di Egidio
2 Dec 24 ii+* Re: Still on negative translation for substructural logics2Julio Di Egidio
3 Dec 24 iii`- Re: Still on negative translation for substructural logics1Mild Shock
5 Dec 24 ii`* The solver does not terminate (Was: Still on negative translation for substructural logics)17Julio Di Egidio
6 Dec 24 ii +* Re: The solver does not terminate7Julio Di Egidio
6 Dec 24 ii i`* Re: The solver does not terminate6Mild Shock
6 Dec 24 ii i `* Re: The solver does not terminate5Mild Shock
6 Dec 24 ii i  `* Re: The solver does not terminate4Julio Di Egidio
6 Dec 24 ii i   `* Re: The solver does not terminate3Julio Di Egidio
6 Dec 24 ii i    `* Re: The solver does not terminate2Mild Shock
6 Dec 24 ii i     `- Re: The solver does not terminate1Mild Shock
7 Dec 24 ii `* Re: The solver does not terminate9Julio Di Egidio
7 Dec 24 ii  `* Re: The solver does not terminate8Mild Shock
7 Dec 24 ii   +* Re: The solver does not terminate2Mild Shock
7 Dec 24 ii   i`- Re: The solver does not terminate1Mild Shock
8 Dec 24 ii   `* Re: The solver does not terminate5Julio Di Egidio
8 Dec 24 ii    `* Seventy-Five Problems for Testing Automatic Theorem Provers (Was: Fuck the nazi-retards)4Mild Shock
8 Dec 24 ii     +- Re: Seventy-Five Problems for Testing Automatic Theorem Provers (Was: Fuck the nazi-retards)1Mild Shock
9 Dec 24 ii     `* Re: Seventy-Five Problems for Testing Automatic Theorem Provers2Julio Di Egidio
9 Dec 24 ii      `- Re: Seventy-Five Problems for Testing Automatic Theorem Provers1Mild Shock
9 Dec 24 i`* Re: Still on negative translation for substructural logics2Mild Shock
9 Dec 24 i `- Re: Still on negative translation for substructural logics1Mild Shock
3 Dec 24 +- Re: Still on negative translation for substructural logics1Julio Di Egidio
3 Dec 24 +- Re: Still on negative translation for substructural logics1Julio Di Egidio
4 Dec 24 +* Counter Example by Troelstra & Schwichtenberg (Was: Still on negative translation for substructural logics)4Mild Shock
4 Dec 24 i`* Re: Counter Example by Troelstra & Schwichtenberg (Was: Still on negative translation for substructural logics)3Julio Di Egidio
6 Dec 24 i `* Affine Logic, what Properties does it have? (Was: Counter Example by Troelstra & Schwichtenberg)2Mild Shock
6 Dec 24 i  `- Re: Affine Logic, what Properties does it have? (Was: Counter Example by Troelstra & Schwichtenberg)1Mild Shock
9 Dec 24 `* leanTap wasn't a good idea2Mild Shock
9 Dec 24  `- Re: leanTap wasn't a good idea1Mild Shock

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal