XPost: comp.lang.prolog, comp.theory, sci.math   
   From: mikko.levanto@iki.fi   
      
   On 13/12/2025 16:43, olcott wrote:   
   > On 12/13/2025 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >> olcott kirjoitti 12.12.2025 klo 16.19:   
   >>> On 12/12/2025 2:50 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>> olcott kirjoitti 11.12.2025 klo 16.17:   
   >>>>> On 12/11/2025 2:42 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 10.12.2025 klo 16.10:   
   >>>>>>> On 12/10/2025 4:04 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 8.12.2025 klo 21.09:   
   >>>>>>>>> On 12/8/2025 3:13 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 5.12.2025 klo 19.43:   
   >>>>>>>>>>> On 12/5/2025 3:38 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 4.12.2025 klo 16.06:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/4/2025 2:58 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tristan Wibberley kirjoitti 4.12.2025 klo 4.32:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 30/11/2025 09:58, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note that the meanings of   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   ?- G = not(provable(F, G)).   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   ?- unify_with_occurs_check(G, not(provable(F, G))).   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are different. The former assigns a value to G, the   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latter does not.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For sufficiently informal definitions of "value".   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And for sufficiently wrong ones too!   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is sufficiently clear what "value" of a Prolog variable   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> means.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> % This sentence cannot be proven in F   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> ?- G = not(provable(F, G)).   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> G = not(provable(F, G)).   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(G, not(provable(F, G))).   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> false.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> I would say that the above Prolog is the 100%   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> complete formal specification of:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> "This sentence cannot be proven in F"   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> The first query can be regarded as a question whether "G =   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> not(provable(   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> F, G))" can be proven for some F and some G. The answer is   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> that it can   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> for every F and for (at least) one G, which is   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> not(provable(G)).   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> The second query can be regarded as a question whether "G =   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> not(provable   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> (F, G))" can be proven for some F and some G that do not   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> contain cycles.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> The answer is that in the proof system of Prolog it cannot be.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> No that it flatly incorrect. The second question is this:   
   >>>>>>>>>>> Is "G = not(provable(F, G))." semantically sound?   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> Where is the definition of Prolog semantics is that said?   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Any expression of Prolog that cannot be evaluated to   
   >>>>>>>>> a truth value because it specifies non-terminating   
   >>>>>>>>> infinite recursion is "semantically unsound" by the   
   >>>>>>>>> definition of those terms even if Prolog only specifies   
   >>>>>>>>> that cannot be evaluated to a truth value because it   
   >>>>>>>>> specifies non-terminating infinite recursion.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Your Prolog implementation has evaluated G = not(provablel(F, G))   
   >>>>>>>> to a truth value true. When doing so it evaluated each side of =   
   >>>>>>>> to a value that is not a truth value.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(G, not(provable(F, G))).   
   >>>>>>> false.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Proves that   
   >>>>>>> G = not(provable(F, G)).   
   >>>>>>> would remain stuck in infinite recursion.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> unify_with_occurs_check() examines the directed   
   >>>>>>> graph of the evaluation sequence of an expression.   
   >>>>>>> When it detects a cycle that indicates that an   
   >>>>>>> expression would remain stuck in recursive   
   >>>>>>> evaluation never to be resolved to a truth value.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> BEGIN:(Clocksin & Mellish 2003:254)   
   >>>>>>> Finally, a note about how Prolog matching sometimes differs   
   >>>>>>> from the unification used in Resolution. Most Prolog systems   
   >>>>>>> will allow you to satisfy goals like:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> equal(X, X).   
   >>>>>>> ?- equal(foo(Y), Y).   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> that is, they will allow you to match a term against an   
   >>>>>>> uninstantiated subterm of itself. In this example, foo(Y)   
   >>>>>>> is matched against Y, which appears within it. As a result,   
   >>>>>>> Y will stand for foo(Y), which is foo(foo(Y)) (because of   
   >>>>>>> what Y stands for), which is foo(foo(foo(Y))), and so on.   
   >>>>>>> So Y ends up standing for some kind of infinite structure.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Note that, whereas they may allow you to construct something   
   >>>>>>> like this, most Prolog systems will not be able to write it   
   >>>>>>> out at the end. According to the formal definition of   
   >>>>>>> Unification, this kind of “infinite term” should never come   
   >>>>>>> to exist. Thus Prolog systems that allow a term to match an   
   >>>>>>> uninstantiated subterm of itself do not act correctly as   
   >>>>>>> Resolution theorem provers. In order to make them do so, we   
   >>>>>>> would have to add a check that a variable cannot be   
   >>>>>>> instantiated to something containing itself. Such a check,   
   >>>>>>> an occurs check, would be straightforward to implement, but   
   >>>>>>> would slow down the execution of Prolog programs considerably.   
   >>>>>>> Since it would only affect very few programs, most implementors   
   >>>>>>> have simply left it out 1.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> 1 The Prolog standard states that the result is undefined if   
   >>>>>>> a Prolog system attempts to match a term against an   
   >>>>>>> uninstantiated subterm of itself, which means that programs which   
   >>>>>>> cause this to   
   >>>>>>> happen will not be portable. A portable program should ensure   
   >>>>>>> that wherever an occurs check might be applicable the built-in   
   >>>>>>> predicate   
   >>>>>>> unify_with_occurs_check/2 is used explicitly instead of the normal   
   >>>>>>> unification operation of the Prolog implementation. As its name   
   >>>>>>> suggests, this predicate acts like =/2 except that it fails if an   
   >>>>>>> occurs check detects an illegal attempt to instantiate a variable.   
   >>>>>>> END:(Clocksin & Mellish 2003:254)   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Clocksin, W.F. and Mellish, C.S. 2003. Programming in Prolog   
   >>>>>>> Using the ISO Standard Fifth Edition, 254. Berlin Heidelberg:   
   >>>>>>> Springer-Verlag.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Thank you for the confirmation of my explanation of your error.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>  >> Y will stand for foo(Y), which is foo(foo(Y)) (because of   
   >>>>>  >> what Y stands for), which is foo(foo(foo(Y))), and so on.   
   >>>>> As I say non-terminating, thus never resolves to a truth value.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> As according to Prolog rules foo(Y) isn't a truth value for any Y   
   >>>> the above is obviously just an attempt to deive with a distraction.   
   >>>   
   >>> That was a quote from the most definitive source   
   >>> for the Prolog Language.   
   >>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)