Article View: net.lang.prolog
Article #670Re: Standard behavior?
From: reddy
Date: Sun, 08 Jun 1986 00:19
Date: Sun, 08 Jun 1986 00:19
18 lines
1510 bytes
1510 bytes
/* Written 6:10 pm Jun 1, 1986 by blenko@burdvax.UUCP in uiucdcs:net.lang.prolog */ So the discussion reduces to establishing the logical or non-logical character of call() and negation-by-failure(). I will speculate that the meaning of call() can be captured by a suitable application of first-order logic, due to its definition in terms of constructive proofs (I have something along the lines of Perlis' AIJ (1985) article in mind here). I am side-stepping the problem of incompleteness of logic-programming interpreters w.r.t resolution. Tom /* End of text from uiucdcs:net.lang.prolog */ We should be careful about what we mean by negation-by-failure. If it is applied to ground atoms, it is certainly logical (see for example Lloyd's book). But when it is applied to non-ground atoms, it messes up with the quantification of variables in the atoms. Hence, it should not be surprising that it is possible to define cut etc using it.
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<29700030@uiucdcs>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!reddyReferences:
<6500005@uicsl>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!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!reddy From: reddy@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU Newsgroups: net.lang.prolog Subject: Re: Standard behavior? Message-ID: <29700030@uiucdcs> Date: Sat, 7-Jun-86 20:19:00 EDT Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.29700030 Posted: Sat Jun 7 20:19:00 1986 Date-Received: Mon, 9-Jun-86 03:06:28 EDT References: <6500005@uicsl> Lines: 18 Nf-ID: #R:uicsl:6500005:uiucdcs:29700030:000:947 Nf-From: uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU!reddy Jun 7 19:19:00 1986