[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: NPR, Godel, Semantic Web
C. M. Sperberg-McQueen wrote: > Sure. Prolog texts don't talk about them in these > terms (as Goedel sentences), but Prolog texts almost > always mention, at some point, that depending on > how you write your predicates some things which > obviously follow from your program (viewed declaratively) > cannot in fact be inferred by the Prolog system > (working procedurally). But is this a fact expressible *in Prolog*? I suppose it is, since you can write a meta-circular Prolog interpreter. [Prolog example snipped] > This will (I think -- I'm kind of rusty and haven't > run this), when provided with a suitable set of facts > involving 'parent', produce the expected result. > It will for example, infer that 'abel' is human. > > Change the order of the rules for 'human', however, > to 3412, however, and the system will have trouble > figuring out even that 'adam' is human. I fed both versions into GNU Prolog 1.2.1 and it handled both with no problem. > append([],L,L). > append([A|B],C,[A|D]) :- append(B,C,D). > > and next the restricted one: > > append([],L,L) :- !. > append([A|B],C,[A|D]) :- append(B,C,D). > > The second one works only when at the initial call the > first two arguments are instantiated and the third is > possibly not instantiated. Again, I cannot provoke gprolog into returning the wrong answer with the second definition, and I tried many cases. -- There is / one art || John Cowan <jcowan@r...> no more / no less || http://www.reutershealth.com to do / all things || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan with art- / lessness \\ -- Piet Hein
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|