Panic on the Titanic? This paper here
references s(CASP) and LLM:

Prolog: Past, Present, and Future
https://personal.utdallas.edu/~gupta/prolog-next-50-years.pdf

But when I lookup the reference, its
just some to appear thingy:

A. Rajasekharan, Y. Zeng, P. Padalkar, and G. Gupta.
Reliable Natural Language Understanding with Large
Language Models and Answer Set Programming. Preprint
arXiv:2302.03780; to appear in Proc. ICLP’23 (Tech. Comm.) 2023.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.03780

LoL

Well its never too late to jump on a
Bandwagon, even if some bones might crash.

Bye

Mostowski Collapse schrieb:
> What would make sense, is a ISO core standard working
> group, that would draft these stream creation properties:
>
> - bom(Bool)
> Specify detecting or writing a BOM.
> - encoding(Atom)
> Specify a file encoding.
>
> After all we have already 2022 and 50 years of Prolog. But
> can we be sure that Prolog texts are exchangeable, if
> they use Unicode code points?
>
> What if a UTF-16 file, handy for CJK, comes along?
>
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 10. Juni 2022 um 14:54:07 UTC+2:
>> Its 2022 and Prolog is among the top 20
>>
>> TIOBE Index for June 2022
>> https://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index/
>>
>> Woa!

Knock, Knock, any idea whats going on via OpenAI?
Will computers communicate with each other via
Prolog Goals, Telescript Agents, SPARQL Queries?

What about "natural language" with tons of context
as the interfacing currency between Computers and
Humans, and between Computers and Computers?

Interesting paper here, with modes LM size goals:

"[...]
Although the second path is simpler and apparently
capable of earlier realization, it has been relatively neglected.
Fredkin's trie memory provides a promising paradigm.
We may in due course see a serious effort to develop
computer programs that can be connected together
like the words and phrases of speech to do whatever
computation or control is required at the moment. The
consideration that holds back such an effort, apparently,
is that the effort would produce nothing that, would be of
great value in the context of existing computers. It would
be unrewarding to develop the language before there are
any computing machines capable of responding meaningfully to it.
[...]
For real-time interaction on a truly symbiotic level, however,
a vocabulary of about 2000 words, e.g. 1000 words of
something like basic English and 1000 technical terms,
would probably be required. That constitutes a challenging
problem. In the consensus of acousticians and linguists,
construction of a recognizer of 2000 words cannot be
accomplished now. However, there are several organizations
that would happily undertake to develop and automatie recognizer
for such a vocabulary on a five-year basis.
[...]"

LICKLIDER, J. C. R. 1960. Man-computer symbiosis.
IRE Transactions on Human Factors in Electronics. HFE-1: 4-11, (March 1).
http://worrydream.com/refs/Licklider%20-%20Man-Computer%20Symbiosis.pdf

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Samstag, 20. Mai 2023 um 14:09:26 UTC+2:
> Panic on the Titanic? This paper here
> references s(CASP) and LLM:
>
> Prolog: Past, Present, and Future
> https://personal.utdallas.edu/~gupta/prolog-next-50-years.pdf
>
> But when I lookup the reference, its
> just some to appear thingy:
>
> A. Rajasekharan, Y. Zeng, P. Padalkar, and G. Gupta.
> Reliable Natural Language Understanding with Large
> Language Models and Answer Set Programming. Preprint
> arXiv:2302.03780; to appear in Proc. ICLP’23 (Tech. Comm.) 2023.
> https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.03780
>
> LoL
>
> Well its never too late to jump on a
> Bandwagon, even if some bones might crash.
>
> Bye
>
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb:
> > What would make sense, is a ISO core standard working
> > group, that would draft these stream creation properties:
> >
> > - bom(Bool)
> > Specify detecting or writing a BOM.
> > - encoding(Atom)
> > Specify a file encoding.
> >
> > After all we have already 2022 and 50 years of Prolog. But
> > can we be sure that Prolog texts are exchangeable, if
> > they use Unicode code points?
> >
> > What if a UTF-16 file, handy for CJK, comes along?
> >
> > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 10. Juni 2022 um 14:54:07 UTC+2:
> >> Its 2022 and Prolog is among the top 20
> >>
> >> TIOBE Index for June 2022
> >> https://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index/
> >>
> >> Woa!

Corr.: Typo

Interesting paper here, with modest LM size goals:

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Samstag, 20. Mai 2023 um 14:46:32 UTC+2:
> Knock, Knock, any idea whats going on via OpenAI?
> Will computers communicate with each other via
> Prolog Goals, Telescript Agents, SPARQL Queries?
>
> What about "natural language" with tons of context
> as the interfacing currency between Computers and
> Humans, and between Computers and Computers?
>
> Interesting paper here, with modes LM size goals:
>
> "[...]
> Although the second path is simpler and apparently
> capable of earlier realization, it has been relatively neglected.
> Fredkin's trie memory provides a promising paradigm.
> We may in due course see a serious effort to develop
> computer programs that can be connected together
> like the words and phrases of speech to do whatever
> computation or control is required at the moment. The
> consideration that holds back such an effort, apparently,
> is that the effort would produce nothing that, would be of
> great value in the context of existing computers. It would
> be unrewarding to develop the language before there are
> any computing machines capable of responding meaningfully to it.
> [...]
> For real-time interaction on a truly symbiotic level, however,
> a vocabulary of about 2000 words, e.g. 1000 words of
> something like basic English and 1000 technical terms,
> would probably be required. That constitutes a challenging
> problem. In the consensus of acousticians and linguists,
> construction of a recognizer of 2000 words cannot be
> accomplished now. However, there are several organizations
> that would happily undertake to develop and automatie recognizer
> for such a vocabulary on a five-year basis.
> [...]"
>
> LICKLIDER, J. C. R. 1960. Man-computer symbiosis.
> IRE Transactions on Human Factors in Electronics. HFE-1: 4-11, (March 1).
> http://worrydream.com/refs/Licklider%20-%20Man-Computer%20Symbiosis.pdf
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Samstag, 20. Mai 2023 um 14:09:26 UTC+2:
> > Panic on the Titanic? This paper here
> > references s(CASP) and LLM:
> >
> > Prolog: Past, Present, and Future
> > https://personal.utdallas.edu/~gupta/prolog-next-50-years.pdf
> >
> > But when I lookup the reference, its
> > just some to appear thingy:
> >
> > A. Rajasekharan, Y. Zeng, P. Padalkar, and G. Gupta.
> > Reliable Natural Language Understanding with Large
> > Language Models and Answer Set Programming. Preprint
> > arXiv:2302.03780; to appear in Proc. ICLP’23 (Tech. Comm.) 2023..
> > https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.03780
> >
> > LoL
> >
> > Well its never too late to jump on a
> > Bandwagon, even if some bones might crash.
> >
> > Bye
> >
> > Mostowski Collapse schrieb:
> > > What would make sense, is a ISO core standard working
> > > group, that would draft these stream creation properties:
> > >
> > > - bom(Bool)
> > > Specify detecting or writing a BOM.
> > > - encoding(Atom)
> > > Specify a file encoding.
> > >
> > > After all we have already 2022 and 50 years of Prolog. But
> > > can we be sure that Prolog texts are exchangeable, if
> > > they use Unicode code points?
> > >
> > > What if a UTF-16 file, handy for CJK, comes along?
> > >
> > > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 10. Juni 2022 um 14:54:07 UTC+2:
> > >> Its 2022 and Prolog is among the top 20
> > >>
> > >> TIOBE Index for June 2022
> > >> https://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index/
> > >>
> > >> Woa!

ChatGPT uses something like a 50'000 or much larger
vocabulary, for more recent models. And has also mechanisms
to handle out-of-vocabulary (OOV) words.

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Samstag, 20. Mai 2023 um 14:48:54 UTC+2:
> Corr.: Typo
>
> Interesting paper here, with modest LM size goals:
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Samstag, 20. Mai 2023 um 14:46:32 UTC+2:
> > Knock, Knock, any idea whats going on via OpenAI?
> > Will computers communicate with each other via
> > Prolog Goals, Telescript Agents, SPARQL Queries?
> >
> > What about "natural language" with tons of context
> > as the interfacing currency between Computers and
> > Humans, and between Computers and Computers?
> >
> > Interesting paper here, with modes LM size goals:
> >
> > "[...]
> > Although the second path is simpler and apparently
> > capable of earlier realization, it has been relatively neglected.
> > Fredkin's trie memory provides a promising paradigm.
> > We may in due course see a serious effort to develop
> > computer programs that can be connected together
> > like the words and phrases of speech to do whatever
> > computation or control is required at the moment. The
> > consideration that holds back such an effort, apparently,
> > is that the effort would produce nothing that, would be of
> > great value in the context of existing computers. It would
> > be unrewarding to develop the language before there are
> > any computing machines capable of responding meaningfully to it.
> > [...]
> > For real-time interaction on a truly symbiotic level, however,
> > a vocabulary of about 2000 words, e.g. 1000 words of
> > something like basic English and 1000 technical terms,
> > would probably be required. That constitutes a challenging
> > problem. In the consensus of acousticians and linguists,
> > construction of a recognizer of 2000 words cannot be
> > accomplished now. However, there are several organizations
> > that would happily undertake to develop and automatie recognizer
> > for such a vocabulary on a five-year basis.
> > [...]"
> >
> > LICKLIDER, J. C. R. 1960. Man-computer symbiosis.
> > IRE Transactions on Human Factors in Electronics. HFE-1: 4-11, (March 1).
> > http://worrydream.com/refs/Licklider%20-%20Man-Computer%20Symbiosis.pdf
> > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Samstag, 20. Mai 2023 um 14:09:26 UTC+2:
> > > Panic on the Titanic? This paper here
> > > references s(CASP) and LLM:
> > >
> > > Prolog: Past, Present, and Future
> > > https://personal.utdallas.edu/~gupta/prolog-next-50-years.pdf
> > >
> > > But when I lookup the reference, its
> > > just some to appear thingy:
> > >
> > > A. Rajasekharan, Y. Zeng, P. Padalkar, and G. Gupta.
> > > Reliable Natural Language Understanding with Large
> > > Language Models and Answer Set Programming. Preprint
> > > arXiv:2302.03780; to appear in Proc. ICLP’23 (Tech. Comm.) 2023.
> > > https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.03780
> > >
> > > LoL
> > >
> > > Well its never too late to jump on a
> > > Bandwagon, even if some bones might crash.
> > >
> > > Bye
> > >
> > > Mostowski Collapse schrieb:
> > > > What would make sense, is a ISO core standard working
> > > > group, that would draft these stream creation properties:
> > > >
> > > > - bom(Bool)
> > > > Specify detecting or writing a BOM.
> > > > - encoding(Atom)
> > > > Specify a file encoding.
> > > >
> > > > After all we have already 2022 and 50 years of Prolog. But
> > > > can we be sure that Prolog texts are exchangeable, if
> > > > they use Unicode code points?
> > > >
> > > > What if a UTF-16 file, handy for CJK, comes along?
> > > >
> > > > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 10. Juni 2022 um 14:54:07 UTC+2:
> > > >> Its 2022 and Prolog is among the top 20
> > > >>
> > > >> TIOBE Index for June 2022
> > > >> https://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index/
> > > >>
> > > >> Woa!

More Knock, Knock. I guess the future of the internet
is indeed a collection of books that talk to each other!
Who had this vision again, I don't remember.

Ok, let some AI intelligence, like ChatGPT, do the
low level plumbing. Interesting paper BTW:

"Supporting a web scale collection of potentially millions
of changing APIs requires rethinking our approach to how
we integrate tools. It is not longer possible to describe
the full set of APIs in a single context.

Many of the APIs will have overlapping functionality with
nuanced limitations and constraints. Simply evaluating
LLMs in this new setting requires new benchmarks.

In this paper, we explore the use of self-instruct fine-tuning
and retrieval to enable LLMs to accurately select from
a large, overlapping, and changing set tools expressed
using their APIs and API documentation.

We construct, APIBench, a large corpus of APIs with
complex and often overlapping functionality by scraping
ML APIs (models) from public model hubs."

Gorilla: Large Language Model Connected with Massive APIs
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2305.15334.pdf

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Samstag, 20. Mai 2023 um 14:46:32 UTC+2:
> Knock, Knock, any idea whats going on via OpenAI?
> Will computers communicate with each other via
> Prolog Goals, Telescript Agents, SPARQL Queries?
>
> What about "natural language" with tons of context
> as the interfacing currency between Computers and
> Humans, and between Computers and Computers?
>
> Interesting paper here, with modes LM size goals:
>
> "[...]
> Although the second path is simpler and apparently
> capable of earlier realization, it has been relatively neglected.
> Fredkin's trie memory provides a promising paradigm.
> We may in due course see a serious effort to develop
> computer programs that can be connected together
> like the words and phrases of speech to do whatever
> computation or control is required at the moment. The
> consideration that holds back such an effort, apparently,
> is that the effort would produce nothing that, would be of
> great value in the context of existing computers. It would
> be unrewarding to develop the language before there are
> any computing machines capable of responding meaningfully to it.
> [...]
> For real-time interaction on a truly symbiotic level, however,
> a vocabulary of about 2000 words, e.g. 1000 words of
> something like basic English and 1000 technical terms,
> would probably be required. That constitutes a challenging
> problem. In the consensus of acousticians and linguists,
> construction of a recognizer of 2000 words cannot be
> accomplished now. However, there are several organizations
> that would happily undertake to develop and automatie recognizer
> for such a vocabulary on a five-year basis.
> [...]"
>
> LICKLIDER, J. C. R. 1960. Man-computer symbiosis.
> IRE Transactions on Human Factors in Electronics. HFE-1: 4-11, (March 1).
> http://worrydream.com/refs/Licklider%20-%20Man-Computer%20Symbiosis.pdf
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Samstag, 20. Mai 2023 um 14:09:26 UTC+2:
> > Panic on the Titanic? This paper here
> > references s(CASP) and LLM:
> >
> > Prolog: Past, Present, and Future
> > https://personal.utdallas.edu/~gupta/prolog-next-50-years.pdf
> >
> > But when I lookup the reference, its
> > just some to appear thingy:
> >
> > A. Rajasekharan, Y. Zeng, P. Padalkar, and G. Gupta.
> > Reliable Natural Language Understanding with Large
> > Language Models and Answer Set Programming. Preprint
> > arXiv:2302.03780; to appear in Proc. ICLP’23 (Tech. Comm.) 2023..
> > https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.03780
> >
> > LoL
> >
> > Well its never too late to jump on a
> > Bandwagon, even if some bones might crash.
> >
> > Bye
> >
> > Mostowski Collapse schrieb:
> > > What would make sense, is a ISO core standard working
> > > group, that would draft these stream creation properties:
> > >
> > > - bom(Bool)
> > > Specify detecting or writing a BOM.
> > > - encoding(Atom)
> > > Specify a file encoding.
> > >
> > > After all we have already 2022 and 50 years of Prolog. But
> > > can we be sure that Prolog texts are exchangeable, if
> > > they use Unicode code points?
> > >
> > > What if a UTF-16 file, handy for CJK, comes along?
> > >
> > > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 10. Juni 2022 um 14:54:07 UTC+2:
> > >> Its 2022 and Prolog is among the top 20
> > >>
> > >> TIOBE Index for June 2022
> > >> https://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index/
> > >>
> > >> Woa!

June, 2023 Update: It might be the case, that ChatGPT has improved
in logic. Here it does even modal logic, and you can ask it to produce
proofs without LEM. ChatGPT does the following tasks:

Here’s how you can translate the proof into natural deduction:
Here’s an alternative proof that does not rely on LEM:
Here’s the translation of the proof into Fitch-style natural deduction:
Here’s the translation of the proof into Gentzen’s tree-style natural deduction:
Here’s the translation of the proof into sequent-style natural deduction:
https://chat.openai.com/share/79ae4f02-fd07-4786-800b-305bc9eed143

Today I had for some minutes a strong feeling
of obsolence, was even imagining that these could
be my last days where I write some "program code".

This happened after I saw ChatGPT doing logic.
Although was reading about "Low Code / No Code"
already for a while. So which profession gets hit first?

Profiles of the future : an inquiry into the limits of the possible
Arthur C. Clarke - 1962, Chapter 18: The Obsolence of Man
https://archive.org/details/profilesoffuture00clar/page/222/mode/2up

Arthur C. Clarke talks
A Space Odyssey and artificial intelligence, 1968
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNJbUYD-pfo

Mild Shock schrieb am Donnerstag, 1. Juni 2023 um 23:10:34 UTC+2:
> June, 2023 Update: It might be the case, that ChatGPT has improved
> in logic. Here it does even modal logic, and you can ask it to produce
> proofs without LEM. ChatGPT does the following tasks:
>
> Here’s how you can translate the proof into natural deduction:
> Here’s an alternative proof that does not rely on LEM:
> Here’s the translation of the proof into Fitch-style natural deduction:
> Here’s the translation of the proof into Gentzen’s tree-style natural deduction:
> Here’s the translation of the proof into sequent-style natural deduction:
> https://chat.openai.com/share/79ae4f02-fd07-4786-800b-305bc9eed143

Wao! I love coding so much, maybe should jump
into no-coding. How would I setup my computer
and have myself better skills, so that I would

do no-coding. Like the current project I am
wroking on. A ChatGPT AI would first need to
have a model/context of my current project.

And then maybe I could sit back, ask it:
Please do this for me, please do that for me.
Which would be on second thought quite swell!

Mild Shock schrieb am Donnerstag, 1. Juni 2023 um 23:11:50 UTC+2:
> Today I had for some minutes a strong feeling
> of obsolence, was even imagining that these could
> be my last days where I write some "program code".
>
> This happened after I saw ChatGPT doing logic.
> Although was reading about "Low Code / No Code"
> already for a while. So which profession gets hit first?
>
> Profiles of the future : an inquiry into the limits of the possible
> Arthur C. Clarke - 1962, Chapter 18: The Obsolence of Man
> https://archive.org/details/profilesoffuture00clar/page/222/mode/2up
>
> Arthur C. Clarke talks
> A Space Odyssey and artificial intelligence, 1968
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNJbUYD-pfo
> Mild Shock schrieb am Donnerstag, 1. Juni 2023 um 23:10:34 UTC+2:
> > June, 2023 Update: It might be the case, that ChatGPT has improved
> > in logic. Here it does even modal logic, and you can ask it to produce
> > proofs without LEM. ChatGPT does the following tasks:
> >
> > Here’s how you can translate the proof into natural deduction:
> > Here’s an alternative proof that does not rely on LEM:
> > Here’s the translation of the proof into Fitch-style natural deduction:
> > Here’s the translation of the proof into Gentzen’s tree-style natural deduction:
> > Here’s the translation of the proof into sequent-style natural deduction:
> > https://chat.openai.com/share/79ae4f02-fd07-4786-800b-305bc9eed143

The ChatGPT template above was not done by me. Credits
go to Joseph Vidal-Rosset. That conversations and thus interaction
specific context and mini learnt model extensions can be

shared via share links seems to be a new feature of ChatGPT.
I saw this feature appear only yesterday in ChatGPT.

See also:
https://help.openai.com/en/articles/7925741-chatgpt-shared-links-faq

Mild Shock schrieb am Donnerstag, 1. Juni 2023 um 23:10:34 UTC+2:
> June, 2023 Update: It might be the case, that ChatGPT has improved
> in logic. Here it does even modal logic, and you can ask it to produce
> proofs without LEM. ChatGPT does the following tasks:
>
> Here’s how you can translate the proof into natural deduction:
> Here’s an alternative proof that does not rely on LEM:
> Here’s the translation of the proof into Fitch-style natural deduction:
> Here’s the translation of the proof into Gentzen’s tree-style natural deduction:
> Here’s the translation of the proof into sequent-style natural deduction:
> https://chat.openai.com/share/79ae4f02-fd07-4786-800b-305bc9eed143

So its just a matter of time, like months or weeks,
and we have ChatGPT integrated in IDEs at
our desktop, coding help at our fingertips:

"In line with our iterative deployment philosophy,
we are gradually rolling out plugins in ChatGPT
so we can study their real-world use, impact, and
safety and alignment challenges—all of which
we’ll have to get right in order to achieve our mission."
https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt-plugins

They are quite on mission. This will suplant GitHub
Copilot? Well doesn't matter GitHub Copilot uses
also OpenAI Codex. But in March 2023, OpenAI shut
down access to Codex, but I guess they didn't do

it for some moratorium, they have a better replacement:

"On March 23rd, we will discontinue support for the
Codex API. All customers will have to transition to a
different model. Codex was initially introduced as a
free limited beta in 2021, and has maintained

that status to date. Given the advancements of our
newest GPT-3.5 models for coding tasks, we will no
longer be supporting Codex and encourage all customers
to transition to GPT-3.5-Turbo.

About GPT-3.5-Turbo GPT-3.5-Turbo is the most
cost effective and performant model in the GPT-3.5
family. It can both do coding tasks while also being
complemented with flexible natural language capabilities."
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35242069

Mild Shock schrieb am Donnerstag, 1. Juni 2023 um 23:17:48 UTC+2:
> Wao! I love coding so much, maybe should jump
> into no-coding. How would I setup my computer
> and have myself better skills, so that I would
>
> do no-coding. Like the current project I am
> wroking on. A ChatGPT AI would first need to
> have a model/context of my current project.
>
> And then maybe I could sit back, ask it:
> Please do this for me, please do that for me.
> Which would be on second thought quite swell!
> Mild Shock schrieb am Donnerstag, 1. Juni 2023 um 23:11:50 UTC+2:
> > Today I had for some minutes a strong feeling
> > of obsolence, was even imagining that these could
> > be my last days where I write some "program code".
> >
> > This happened after I saw ChatGPT doing logic.
> > Although was reading about "Low Code / No Code"
> > already for a while. So which profession gets hit first?
> >
> > Profiles of the future : an inquiry into the limits of the possible
> > Arthur C. Clarke - 1962, Chapter 18: The Obsolence of Man
> > https://archive.org/details/profilesoffuture00clar/page/222/mode/2up
> >
> > Arthur C. Clarke talks
> > A Space Odyssey and artificial intelligence, 1968
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNJbUYD-pfo
> > Mild Shock schrieb am Donnerstag, 1. Juni 2023 um 23:10:34 UTC+2:
> > > June, 2023 Update: It might be the case, that ChatGPT has improved
> > > in logic. Here it does even modal logic, and you can ask it to produce
> > > proofs without LEM. ChatGPT does the following tasks:
> > >
> > > Here’s how you can translate the proof into natural deduction:
> > > Here’s an alternative proof that does not rely on LEM:
> > > Here’s the translation of the proof into Fitch-style natural deduction:
> > > Here’s the translation of the proof into Gentzen’s tree-style natural deduction:
> > > Here’s the translation of the proof into sequent-style natural deduction:
> > > https://chat.openai.com/share/79ae4f02-fd07-4786-800b-305bc9eed143

Interestingly there are supposedly ChatGPT
plugins with real-time information integration.
A browser ChatGPT plugin for example:

Unleashing the Power of AI Conversations
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2RW4qx-45Q

Mild Shock schrieb am Samstag, 3. Juni 2023 um 14:20:06 UTC+2:
> So its just a matter of time, like months or weeks,
> and we have ChatGPT integrated in IDEs at
> our desktop, coding help at our fingertips:
>
> "In line with our iterative deployment philosophy,
> we are gradually rolling out plugins in ChatGPT
> so we can study their real-world use, impact, and
> safety and alignment challenges—all of which
> we’ll have to get right in order to achieve our mission."
> https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt-plugins
>
> They are quite on mission. This will suplant GitHub
> Copilot? Well doesn't matter GitHub Copilot uses
> also OpenAI Codex. But in March 2023, OpenAI shut
> down access to Codex, but I guess they didn't do
>
> it for some moratorium, they have a better replacement:
>
> "On March 23rd, we will discontinue support for the
> Codex API. All customers will have to transition to a
> different model. Codex was initially introduced as a
> free limited beta in 2021, and has maintained
>
> that status to date. Given the advancements of our
> newest GPT-3.5 models for coding tasks, we will no
> longer be supporting Codex and encourage all customers
> to transition to GPT-3.5-Turbo.
>
> About GPT-3.5-Turbo GPT-3.5-Turbo is the most
> cost effective and performant model in the GPT-3.5
> family. It can both do coding tasks while also being
> complemented with flexible natural language capabilities."
> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35242069
> Mild Shock schrieb am Donnerstag, 1. Juni 2023 um 23:17:48 UTC+2:

Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> writes:

> For Scryer Prolog the struggle is minutely documented:
>
> Compiling and running scryer as a WebAssembly binary?
> https://github.com/mthom/scryer-prolog/issues/615

Good news everyone: It's now possible to compile Scryer Prolog to WASM,
the build instructions are here:

https://github.com/mthom/scryer-prolog/pull/1966#issuecomment-1697974614

Enjoy!

All the best,
Markus

--
comp.lang.prolog FAQ: http://www.logic.at/prolog/faq/
The Power of Prolog: https://www.metalevel.at/prolog

What can you demonstrate with your Scryer WASM?

Ok, I just see, I have nevertheless published my new Chinese
Remainder Theorem CLP(FD) solver, it even runs in a web page.
As a Dogelog Player program its a little slower than the 0.5 secs

in formerly Jekejeke Prolog, but its still faster than the ordinary
CLP(FD) in SWI-Prolog, which takes around 5 seconds. The web
page with the new CLP(FD) takes around 3 seconds,

you can try it here in JS FIiddle, it should also use Dogelog Player 1.1.1:

Example 71: Diophantine Modular
X = 216, Y = 52, Z = 217;
X = 52, Y = 216, Z = 217;
fail.
% Zeit 3574 ms, GC 7 ms, Lips 1696084, Uhr 01.09.2023 20:56 true.
https://jsfiddle.net/Jean_Luc_Picard_2021/d2njehtp/3/

Woa! It still runs unchanged, the code from 12 Months ago.

Markus Triska schrieb am Donnerstag, 31. August 2023 um 21:25:51 UTC+2:
> Mostowski Collapse <burs...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > For Scryer Prolog the struggle is minutely documented:
> >
> > Compiling and running scryer as a WebAssembly binary?
> > https://github.com/mthom/scryer-prolog/issues/615
>
> Good news everyone: It's now possible to compile Scryer Prolog to WASM,
> the build instructions are here:
>
> https://github.com/mthom/scryer-prolog/pull/1966#issuecomment-1697974614
>
> Enjoy!
>
> All the best,
> Markus
>
> --
> comp.lang.prolog FAQ: http://www.logic.at/prolog/faq/
> The Power of Prolog: https://www.metalevel.at/prolog

Look Ma, a FOL resolution theorem prover in Prolog:
See also: http://logic.stanford.edu/intrologic/chapters/chapter_14.html

many([], S, S).
many([C|T], S, R) :- next(C, T, S, R).

next(C, T, S, R) :- member(D, S), weaker(D, C), !, many(T, S, R).
next(C, T, S, R) :- filter(S, C, K), apply(C, K, H),
append(T, H, J), many(J, [C|K], R).

apply(C, S, T) :-
findall(E, (member(D, S), resolvent(C, D, E)), T).

resolvent(C, D, E) :-
select(A, C, H), factor(A, H, C2),
select(B, D, J), factor(B, J, D2),
opposite(A, B),
append(C2, D2, E).

opposite(pos(A), neg(A)).
opposite(neg(A), pos(A)).

factor(_, C, C).
factor(A, C, C2) :- select(A, C, H), factor(A, H, C2).

filter([], _, []).
filter([D|L], C, R) :- weaker(C, D), !, filter(L, C, R).
filter([D|L], C, [D|R]) :- filter(L, C, R).

weaker(C, D) :- \+ \+ (numbervars(D, 0, _), subset(C, D)).

subset([], _).
subset([X|L], R) :- member(X, R), subset(L, R).

% ?- many([[pos(p(X)),pos(p(Y))],[neg(p(U)),neg(p(V))]],[],S).
% S = [[]].

Ok, forgot about the occurs check.

This should also have either:
:- set_prolog_flag(occurs_check, true)

Or then sprinkled with calls to:
unify_occurs_check(_,_)

When variables occur non-linearly in a clause.

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Donnerstag, 2. Juni 2022 um 21:03:37 UTC+2:
> Look Ma, a FOL resolution theorem prover in Prolog:
> See also: http://logic.stanford.edu/intrologic/chapters/chapter_14.html
>
> many([], S, S).
> many([C|T], S, R) :- next(C, T, S, R).
>
> next(C, T, S, R) :- member(D, S), weaker(D, C), !, many(T, S, R).
> next(C, T, S, R) :- filter(S, C, K), apply(C, K, H),
> append(T, H, J), many(J, [C|K], R).
>
> apply(C, S, T) :-
> findall(E, (member(D, S), resolvent(C, D, E)), T).
>
> resolvent(C, D, E) :-
> select(A, C, H), factor(A, H, C2),
> select(B, D, J), factor(B, J, D2),
> opposite(A, B),
> append(C2, D2, E).
>
> opposite(pos(A), neg(A)).
> opposite(neg(A), pos(A)).
>
> factor(_, C, C).
> factor(A, C, C2) :- select(A, C, H), factor(A, H, C2).
>
> filter([], _, []).
> filter([D|L], C, R) :- weaker(C, D), !, filter(L, C, R).
> filter([D|L], C, [D|R]) :- filter(L, C, R).
>
> weaker(C, D) :- \+ \+ (numbervars(D, 0, _), subset(C, D)).
>
> subset([], _).
> subset([X|L], R) :- member(X, R), subset(L, R).
>
> % ?- many([[pos(p(X)),pos(p(Y))],[neg(p(U)),neg(p(V))]],[],S).
> % S = [[]].

Corr.::

unify_with_occurs_check(_,_)

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 3. Juni 2022 um 11:44:20 UTC+2:
> Ok, forgot about the occurs check.
>
> This should also have either:
> :- set_prolog_flag(occurs_check, true)
>
> Or then sprinkled with calls to:
> unify_occurs_check(_,_)
>
> When variables occur non-linearly in a clause.
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Donnerstag, 2. Juni 2022 um 21:03:37 UTC+2:
> > Look Ma, a FOL resolution theorem prover in Prolog:
> > See also: http://logic.stanford.edu/intrologic/chapters/chapter_14.html
> >
> > many([], S, S).
> > many([C|T], S, R) :- next(C, T, S, R).
> >
> > next(C, T, S, R) :- member(D, S), weaker(D, C), !, many(T, S, R).
> > next(C, T, S, R) :- filter(S, C, K), apply(C, K, H),
> > append(T, H, J), many(J, [C|K], R).
> >
> > apply(C, S, T) :-
> > findall(E, (member(D, S), resolvent(C, D, E)), T).
> >
> > resolvent(C, D, E) :-
> > select(A, C, H), factor(A, H, C2),
> > select(B, D, J), factor(B, J, D2),
> > opposite(A, B),
> > append(C2, D2, E).
> >
> > opposite(pos(A), neg(A)).
> > opposite(neg(A), pos(A)).
> >
> > factor(_, C, C).
> > factor(A, C, C2) :- select(A, C, H), factor(A, H, C2).
> >
> > filter([], _, []).
> > filter([D|L], C, R) :- weaker(C, D), !, filter(L, C, R).
> > filter([D|L], C, [D|R]) :- filter(L, C, R).
> >
> > weaker(C, D) :- \+ \+ (numbervars(D, 0, _), subset(C, D)).
> >
> > subset([], _).
> > subset([X|L], R) :- member(X, R), subset(L, R).
> >
> > % ?- many([[pos(p(X)),pos(p(Y))],[neg(p(U)),neg(p(V))]],[],S).
> > % S = [[]].

My resolution theorem prover is an attempt to fix a bug
with Markus Triskas resolution theorem prover:

Resolution Calculus for Propositional Logic
pl_resolvent( ... ) :-
select(Q, As0, As),
select(not(Q), Bs0, Bs),
append(As, Bs, Rs0),
https://www.metalevel.at/logic/plres.pl

Mentioned here:

Theorem Proving with Prolog
https://www.metalevel.at/prolog/theoremproving

But when one reads the fine print by Markus Triska, it says
for propositional logic. Not sure whether it works for first
order logic (FOL) as well? There is a FOL example {p(X), p(Y)}

and {~p(U), ~p(V)} which hints that a full flegded resolution
theorem prover needs also “factoring”. Making a resolution
theorem prover only complete when it implements

resolution step with factoring:

> Φ
> ψ
> -------------------------------
> ((Φ’-{φ})∪(Ψ’-{¬ψ}))σ
> where τ is a variable renaming on Φ
> where Φ’ is a factor of Φτ and φ∈Φ’
> where Ψ’ is a factor of Ψ and ¬ψ∈Ψ’
> where σ=mgu(φ, ψ)
> http://logic.stanford.edu/intrologic/chapters/chapter_14.html

Any full fledged resolution theorem provers around written in Prolog?

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 3. Juni 2022 um 11:49:27 UTC+2:
> Corr.::
>
> unify_with_occurs_check(_,_)
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 3. Juni 2022 um 11:44:20 UTC+2:
> > Ok, forgot about the occurs check.
> >
> > This should also have either:
> > :- set_prolog_flag(occurs_check, true)
> >
> > Or then sprinkled with calls to:
> > unify_occurs_check(_,_)
> >
> > When variables occur non-linearly in a clause.
> > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Donnerstag, 2. Juni 2022 um 21:03:37 UTC+2:
> > > Look Ma, a FOL resolution theorem prover in Prolog:
> > > See also: http://logic.stanford.edu/intrologic/chapters/chapter_14.html
> > >
> > > many([], S, S).
> > > many([C|T], S, R) :- next(C, T, S, R).
> > >
> > > next(C, T, S, R) :- member(D, S), weaker(D, C), !, many(T, S, R).
> > > next(C, T, S, R) :- filter(S, C, K), apply(C, K, H),
> > > append(T, H, J), many(J, [C|K], R).
> > >
> > > apply(C, S, T) :-
> > > findall(E, (member(D, S), resolvent(C, D, E)), T).
> > >
> > > resolvent(C, D, E) :-
> > > select(A, C, H), factor(A, H, C2),
> > > select(B, D, J), factor(B, J, D2),
> > > opposite(A, B),
> > > append(C2, D2, E).
> > >
> > > opposite(pos(A), neg(A)).
> > > opposite(neg(A), pos(A)).
> > >
> > > factor(_, C, C).
> > > factor(A, C, C2) :- select(A, C, H), factor(A, H, C2).
> > >
> > > filter([], _, []).
> > > filter([D|L], C, R) :- weaker(C, D), !, filter(L, C, R).
> > > filter([D|L], C, [D|R]) :- filter(L, C, R).
> > >
> > > weaker(C, D) :- \+ \+ (numbervars(D, 0, _), subset(C, D)).
> > >
> > > subset([], _).
> > > subset([X|L], R) :- member(X, R), subset(L, R).
> > >
> > > % ?- many([[pos(p(X)),pos(p(Y))],[neg(p(U)),neg(p(V))]],[],S).
> > > % S = [[]].

Its 2022 and Prolog is among the top 20

TIOBE Index for June 2022
https://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index/

Woa!

What would make sense, is a ISO core standard working
group, that would draft these stream creation properties:

- bom(Bool)
Specify detecting or writing a BOM.
- encoding(Atom)
Specify a file encoding.

After all we have already 2022 and 50 years of Prolog. But
can we be sure that Prolog texts are exchangeable, if
they use Unicode code points?

What if a UTF-16 file, handy for CJK, comes along?

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 10. Juni 2022 um 14:54:07 UTC+2:
> Its 2022 and Prolog is among the top 20
>
> TIOBE Index for June 2022
> https://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index/
>
> Woa!

I feel I have not the according experience. Will redo this
stuff now for Dogelog Player after having it in formerly
Jekejeke Prolog and still discovering new corners. Maybe

can tell more in a few years. Also experience from formerly
Jekejeke Prolog are that things might look different for
UrlConnection, since the server might do the BOM detection

and the client doesn’t need. I guess SWI-Prolog has also
some experience here through http_open/3.

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Samstag, 25. Juni 2022 um 11:39:42 UTC+2:
> What would make sense, is a ISO core standard working
> group, that would draft these stream creation properties:
>
> - bom(Bool)
> Specify detecting or writing a BOM.
> - encoding(Atom)
> Specify a file encoding.
>
> After all we have already 2022 and 50 years of Prolog. But
> can we be sure that Prolog texts are exchangeable, if
> they use Unicode code points?
>
> What if a UTF-16 file, handy for CJK, comes along?
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 10. Juni 2022 um 14:54:07 UTC+2:
> > Its 2022 and Prolog is among the top 20
> >
> > TIOBE Index for June 2022
> > https://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index/
> >
> > Woa!

An ode to the most annoying people in Prolog:

Markus Triska, this wasn't my question. On the same grounds
you could remove (\+)/1 from Prolog. Doesn't make any sense
what you write since Prolog has dual use, pure and impure.

If you want to provide a fully pure language you have to
rename Scryer Prolog into something Scryer XXX, where
XXX is this language. And if your attempt is at a pure language

that is also aimed at bootstrapping the system itself, then
you have to demonstrate this for your XXX. But to the best of
my knowledge it is still called Scryer Prolog and not

Scryer XXX and I do not find a single paper about some XXX
that would be the basis for this utopian Scryer XXX from nowhere
land. Scryer Prolog rather refers repeatedly to WAM which supports

the cut and friends. What is your XXX exactly? Your bragging seems
rather moot and annoying nonsense in the context of Scryer Prolog
which is based on WAM. If this were a repository of another language

dedicated to this Scryer XXX, your comments would make sense.
But as they are now distributed all over the place, they rather
look like disorganized debris to me, that landed in the wrong place.

Maybe open a new repository for your Scryer XXX instead of
bothering people with your ever repeating nonsense, that is
anyway trivially evident for any Prologer who knows his cut?

Ignoring the users of a Prolog system was always a good strategy:

And? Whats your point exactly? The same happens here:

?- nonvar(X).
false.

?- X = a, nonvar(X).
X = a.

Do you also suggest to remove nonvar/1. nonvar/1 is part of the
ISO core standard. forall/2 can be found in this document:

New built-in flags, predicates, and functions proposal
8.10.4 forall/2
ISO/IEC DTR 13211-1:2006
https://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/ulrich/iso-prolog/N208

Which had these people behind it, potential users of it:

Bart Demoen (Belgium)
Jan Wielemaker, (Netherlands)
Joachim Schimpf (UK)
Jonathan Hodgson (USA)
Katsuhiko Nakamura (Japan)
Klaus Daessler (Germany)
Mary Kroening (USA)
Michael Covington (USA)
Neng-Fu Zhou (USA)
Paulo Moura (Portugal)
Pierre Deransart (France)
Péter Szabó (Hungary)
Péter Szeredi (Hungary)
Rémy Haemmerlé (France)
Richard O'Keefe (NZ)
Roberto Bagnara (Italy)
Roger Scowen (UK)
Ulrich Neumerkel (Austria)

So its one, Markus Triska, against many. I am only
voicing what many expect anyway from a Prolog system.

Make a GitHub search, you find many places where it is used
by some Prolog programmer. Its kind of staple food.

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Dienstag, 12. Juli 2022 um 09:45:36 UTC+2:
> An ode to the most annoying people in Prolog:
>
> Markus Triska, this wasn't my question. On the same grounds
> you could remove (\+)/1 from Prolog. Doesn't make any sense
> what you write since Prolog has dual use, pure and impure.
>
> If you want to provide a fully pure language you have to
> rename Scryer Prolog into something Scryer XXX, where
> XXX is this language. And if your attempt is at a pure language
>
> that is also aimed at bootstrapping the system itself, then
> you have to demonstrate this for your XXX. But to the best of
> my knowledge it is still called Scryer Prolog and not
>
> Scryer XXX and I do not find a single paper about some XXX
> that would be the basis for this utopian Scryer XXX from nowhere
> land. Scryer Prolog rather refers repeatedly to WAM which supports
>
> the cut and friends. What is your XXX exactly? Your bragging seems
> rather moot and annoying nonsense in the context of Scryer Prolog
> which is based on WAM. If this were a repository of another language
>
> dedicated to this Scryer XXX, your comments would make sense.
> But as they are now distributed all over the place, they rather
> look like disorganized debris to me, that landed in the wrong place.
>
> Maybe open a new repository for your Scryer XXX instead of
> bothering people with your ever repeating nonsense, that is
> anyway trivially evident for any Prologer who knows his cut?

Here is a suggestion to stop this madness:

SWI-Prolog has an iso marker, which is seen in its
documentation. Scryer Prolog seems to have two
kinds of users. a) Ordinary Prolog users, and b)

Users that project some more Declarative Language into
Scryer Prolog, although Scryer Prolog is based on
WAM which is not designed for that. Maybe introduce

an impure marker so that we can identify the subset
of this upcoming more Declarative Language. This
could be more helpful than distracting GitHub issues

that adresse the ordinary needs of Prolog programmers
by posting trivialities that anyway any Prologer knows. Here
is my suggestion, predicates could be marked as follows:

','/2: no marker
(\+)/1: impure marker
nonvar/1: impure marker
Etc...

One could then generate an index with the pure predicates
that do not have the impure marker. Is there already a booklet
about this new extra ordinary language somewhere?

It would be interesting to see what language results by this index.
Is it possible to bootstrap a Prolog system with this language?
Does it contain some novel declarative predicates?

Also the idea that Scryer Prolog would not support the
needs of ordinary Prolog programmers and is kind of
extra ordinary language runs counter to its own slogan.

It says the first line of the GitHub readme:

Scryer Prolog
Scryer Prolog aims to become to ISO Prolog what GHC is to Haskell:
https://github.com/mthom/scryer-prolog

So it subscribes to ISO Prolog which is anyway dual use,
impure and pure. I do not find that the ISO core standard
would only promote pure Prolog.

Scryer Prolog might be a test bed for some new upcoming
declarative programming language. But then the slogan has
probably to be changed if this test bed gets hijacked into

an exclusive discriminating venture. If the marking doesn't
work, maybe a side project with new Prolog system
XXX could be interesting. Where effectively the

impure predicates are blocked. This could be an interesting
idea, so there would be also download of XXX, which
is pure, and end-users would have no way to change that,

kind of relaunch of the Gödel language idea:

The Gödel Programming Language (Logic Programming)
von Patricia Hill (Author), John W. Lloyd (Author)
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0262082292

which had a similar aim.

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Dienstag, 12. Juli 2022 um 10:28:22 UTC+2:
> Here is a suggestion to stop this madness:
>
>
> SWI-Prolog has an iso marker, which is seen in its
> documentation. Scryer Prolog seems to have two
> kinds of users. a) Ordinary Prolog users, and b)
>
> Users that project some more Declarative Language into
> Scryer Prolog, although Scryer Prolog is based on
> WAM which is not designed for that. Maybe introduce
>
> an impure marker so that we can identify the subset
> of this upcoming more Declarative Language. This
> could be more helpful than distracting GitHub issues
>
> that adresse the ordinary needs of Prolog programmers
> by posting trivialities that anyway any Prologer knows. Here
> is my suggestion, predicates could be marked as follows:
>
> ','/2: no marker
> (\+)/1: impure marker
> nonvar/1: impure marker
> Etc...
>
> One could then generate an index with the pure predicates
> that do not have the impure marker. Is there already a booklet
> about this new extra ordinary language somewhere?
>
> It would be interesting to see what language results by this index.
> Is it possible to bootstrap a Prolog system with this language?
> Does it contain some novel declarative predicates?

Even in 2018 People ask:

I want to start programming with Gödel language
Kurt Gödel, LQ Newbie - 02-24-2018, 09:41 AM
"I don’t know anything about computer programming.
So here I need help please explain to me how computers work.
I found this language called gödel,
but is this the language i can create a game with?
And I do want to know where can I go to learn programming."
https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/programming-9/i-want-to-start-programming-with-g%F6del-language-4175624376/

Call the Scryer derived language Gödel II, how about that?

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Dienstag, 12. Juli 2022 um 10:29:00 UTC+2:
> Also the idea that Scryer Prolog would not support the
> needs of ordinary Prolog programmers and is kind of
> extra ordinary language runs counter to its own slogan.
>
> It says the first line of the GitHub readme:
>
> Scryer Prolog
> Scryer Prolog aims to become to ISO Prolog what GHC is to Haskell:
> https://github.com/mthom/scryer-prolog
>
> So it subscribes to ISO Prolog which is anyway dual use,
> impure and pure. I do not find that the ISO core standard
> would only promote pure Prolog.
>
> Scryer Prolog might be a test bed for some new upcoming
> declarative programming language. But then the slogan has
> probably to be changed if this test bed gets hijacked into
>
> an exclusive discriminating venture. If the marking doesn't
> work, maybe a side project with new Prolog system
> XXX could be interesting. Where effectively the
>
> impure predicates are blocked. This could be an interesting
> idea, so there would be also download of XXX, which
> is pure, and end-users would have no way to change that,
>
> kind of relaunch of the Gödel language idea:
>
> The Gödel Programming Language (Logic Programming)
> von Patricia Hill (Author), John W. Lloyd (Author)
> https://www.amazon.com/dp/0262082292
>
> which had a similar aim.
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Dienstag, 12. Juli 2022 um 10:28:22 UTC+2:
> > Here is a suggestion to stop this madness:
> >
> >
> > SWI-Prolog has an iso marker, which is seen in its
> > documentation. Scryer Prolog seems to have two
> > kinds of users. a) Ordinary Prolog users, and b)
> >
> > Users that project some more Declarative Language into
> > Scryer Prolog, although Scryer Prolog is based on
> > WAM which is not designed for that. Maybe introduce
> >
> > an impure marker so that we can identify the subset
> > of this upcoming more Declarative Language. This
> > could be more helpful than distracting GitHub issues
> >
> > that adresse the ordinary needs of Prolog programmers
> > by posting trivialities that anyway any Prologer knows. Here
> > is my suggestion, predicates could be marked as follows:
> >
> > ','/2: no marker
> > (\+)/1: impure marker
> > nonvar/1: impure marker
> > Etc...
> >
> > One could then generate an index with the pure predicates
> > that do not have the impure marker. Is there already a booklet
> > about this new extra ordinary language somewhere?
> >
> > It would be interesting to see what language results by this index.
> > Is it possible to bootstrap a Prolog system with this language?
> > Does it contain some novel declarative predicates?