Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

The sum of the Universe is zero.


devel / comp.lang.prolog / Re: on "infinitely recursive" and "recursive"

SubjectAuthor
* on "infinitely recursive" and "recursive"polcott
`- on "infinitely recursive" and "recursive"Richard Damon

1
Re: on "infinitely recursive" and "recursive"

<t4mb45$rk6$1@dont-email.me>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=10104&group=comp.lang.prolog#10104

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy comp.lang.prolog
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polco...@gmail.com (polcott)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.lang.prolog
Subject: Re: on "infinitely recursive" and "recursive"
Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 11:05:23 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <t4mb45$rk6$1@dont-email.me>
References: <20220501133707.00002134@reddwarf.jmc> <87mtg1tizc.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 16:05:25 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="c2520d0307b0b198e014f96ec09ab41a";
logging-data="28294"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19xVAxAmYEFwJeOSncNhvld"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:2gq67qulyt8uDhoIItCjJdPe5mo=
In-Reply-To: <87mtg1tizc.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: polcott - Sun, 1 May 2022 16:05 UTC

On 5/1/2022 9:39 AM, Ben wrote:
> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> writes:
>
>> Recursive definitions are fine, infinitely recursive definitions (such
>> as The Halting Problem) are INVALID.
>
> (1) The halting problem is not an infinitely recursive definition.
>
> (2) Infinitely recursive definitions are often fine. For example, the
> list of Fibonacci numbers:
>

This type is never fine: // Adapted from Clocksin & Mellish
foo(foo(foo(foo(foo(foo(foo(foo(foo(foo(foo(foo(...))))))))))))

Because Gödel says
14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
undecidability proof

G ↔ ¬Provable(F, G) is an epistemological antinomy therefore it is
necessarily sufficiently equivalent to his G.

Likewise with this one: LP ↔ ¬True(LP)
It can be evaluated as semantically incorrect without the need to define
True(). No matter how True() is defined LP ↔ ¬True(LP) is semantically
incorrect because it specifies this:

LP ↔ ¬True(¬True(¬True(¬True(¬True(¬True(¬True(¬True(LP))))))))
and Prolog can detect and reject this with unify_with_occurs_check.

> fibs = 1 : 1 : zipWith (+) fibs (tail fibs)
>
> or the list of factorials:
>
> facts = prod 1 1 where prod p n = p : prod (p*n) (n+1)
>

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Re: on "infinitely recursive" and "recursive"

<udzbK.388021$f2a5.383557@fx48.iad>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=10107&group=comp.lang.prolog#10107

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy comp.lang.prolog
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!npeer.as286.net!npeer-ng0.as286.net!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx48.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.1
Subject: Re: on "infinitely recursive" and "recursive"
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.lang.prolog
References: <20220501133707.00002134@reddwarf.jmc> <87mtg1tizc.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<t4mb45$rk6$1@dont-email.me>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <t4mb45$rk6$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 57
Message-ID: <udzbK.388021$f2a5.383557@fx48.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 13:14:03 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 2862
 by: Richard Damon - Sun, 1 May 2022 17:14 UTC

On 5/1/22 12:05 PM, polcott wrote:
> On 5/1/2022 9:39 AM, Ben wrote:
>> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> writes:
>>
>>> Recursive definitions are fine, infinitely recursive definitions (such
>>> as The Halting Problem) are INVALID.
>>
>> (1) The halting problem is not an infinitely recursive definition.
>>
>> (2) Infinitely recursive definitions are often fine.  For example, the
>> list of Fibonacci numbers:
>>
>
> This type is never fine: // Adapted from Clocksin & Mellish
> foo(foo(foo(foo(foo(foo(foo(foo(foo(foo(foo(foo(...))))))))))))

Depends on the definition of foo.

If foo is the function "fact" I have presented, then the unwinding
becomes exactly that to a too dumb naive expansion.

Thus "never" is incorrect.

>
> Because Gödel says
> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
> undecidability proof
>
> G ↔ ¬Provable(F, G) is an epistemological antinomy therefore it is
> necessarily sufficiently equivalent to his G.
>
> Likewise with this one: LP ↔ ¬True(LP)
> It can be evaluated as semantically incorrect without the need to define
> True(). No matter how True() is defined LP ↔ ¬True(LP) is semantically
> incorrect because it specifies this:
>
> LP ↔ ¬True(¬True(¬True(¬True(¬True(¬True(¬True(¬True(LP))))))))
> and Prolog can detect and reject this with unify_with_occurs_check.

Because Prolog is too limited to be able to fully handle this sort of
recursion. Prolog apparently can't handle the recursive definition of
fact(n), which just proves that its rejection of something as
"infinitely recursive" is NOT "Proof" that it is invalid.

>
>
>>    fibs = 1 : 1 : zipWith (+) fibs (tail fibs)
>>
>> or the list of factorials:
>>
>>     facts = prod 1 1 where prod p n = p : prod (p*n) (n+1)
>>
>
>


devel / comp.lang.prolog / Re: on "infinitely recursive" and "recursive"

1
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.81
clearnet tor