home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!att!allegra!alice!pereira
- From: pereira@alice.att.com (Fernando Pereira)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.prolog
- Subject: Re: Occurs check
- Message-ID: <24443@alice.att.com>
- Date: 18 Dec 92 20:31:00 GMT
- Article-I.D.: alice.24443
- References: <1992Dec13.173016.8849@nntp.hut.fi> <1992Dec17.111142.24450@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> <24435@alice.att.com> <1992Dec18.093045.21069@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>
- Reply-To: pereira@alice.UUCP ()
- Organization: AT&T, Bell Labs
- Lines: 27
-
- In article <1992Dec18.093045.21069@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> mmh@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
- >In article <24435@alice.att.com> pereira@alice.UUCP () writes:
- >>If you think of Prolog programs as *logic* programs where the logic is
- >>(a fragment of) first-order logic, what is wrong it that the answers
- >>derived without the occurs-check are in general unsound.
- >Well, yes, I'm aware of this, but Prolog is such a compromised
- >form of logic that I wonder if it matters.
- Right. Since we've had a hurricane, why not go for an earthquake as well?
- More seriously, except for the lack of an occurs check, the original
- *pure* Prolog is sound, and *many* interesting deductive tasks can
- be coded in pure Prolog. Furthermore, extralogical features like assert
- can be used in constrained *logical* ways, eg. for lemma storage,
- and the resulting programs would be sound with respect to well-defined
- logical systems, *if they were executed with the occurs check.* The
- problem with the lack of an occurs check is that it can hit you
- in unforeseen and mysterious ways, while the nonlogical parts
- of Prolog hit you *only* if you use them unwisely.
-
- Fernando Pereira
- 2D-447, AT&T Bell Laboratories
- 600 Mountain Ave, PO Box 636
- Murray Hill, NJ 07974-0636
- pereira@research.att.com
-
-
-
-
-