Article View: net.lang.prolog
Article #639Re: Standard behavior?
From: Lars-Henrik Eriksson
Date: Thu, 29 May 1986 05:58
Date: Thu, 29 May 1986 05:58
15 lines
1403 bytes
1403 bytes
In article <980@watdragon.UUCP> rggoebel@watdragon.UUCP writes: >... The formulae assert that the >individual constant named `[]' and everthing else (i.e., `_') is in the >class named by the predicate `a'. If you believe that the anonymous variable >is a universially quantified variable, then there are two resolution proofs >of the query a([]). There are indeed two resolution proofs of a([]), but as the two proofs produce indentical bindings (in this case, none), it is not obvious that you'd want two matches rather than one. The problem gets worse if you give the query a(X). Again you have two resolution proofs, but with different bindings. As one of the proofs subsumes the other, you could argue for a single match in this case as well (with the most general binding). I would prefer the single match in both cases.
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1162@sicsten.UUCP>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!caip!seismo!mcvax!enea!sicsten!lheReferences:
<980@watdragon.UUCP>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!caip!seismo!mcvax!enea!sicsten!lhe From: lhe@sicsten.UUCP (Lars-Henrik Eriksson) Newsgroups: net.lang.prolog Subject: Re: Standard behavior? Message-ID: <1162@sicsten.UUCP> Date: Thu, 29-May-86 01:58:38 EDT Article-I.D.: sicsten.1162 Posted: Thu May 29 01:58:38 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 31-May-86 06:40:12 EDT References: <980@watdragon.UUCP> Reply-To: lhe@sicsten.UUCP (Lars-Henrik Eriksson) Organization: SICS, Sweden Lines: 15