Re: FOL, ZFC, NGB and Prolog
- From: Barb Knox <see@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 11:14:26 +1200
In article <1118163658.286358.92980@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Tom" <tkorna@xxxxx> wrote:
>Jim Spriggs wrote:
>> Tom wrote:
>> >
>> > .... Prolog is,
>> > merely, FOL in executable notation.
>>
>
>: No, Prolog is much more restrictive than FOL.
>
>I see. I thought that it is, as is FOL, Turing complete.
The issue here isn't about computational power but about expressiveness.
For example, there is no direct Prolog translation of this FOL:
Ax (P(x) v Q(x))
For another example, Prolog's negation-as-failure means that Prolog a model
of some domain relies on the "closed world assumption": if you can't prove
that something is true then it must be false. This is different from full
FOL.
>Kindest regards,
>Tom
--
---------------------------
| BBB b \ Barbara at LivingHistory stop co stop uk
| B B aa rrr b |
| BBB a a r bbb | Quidquid latine dictum sit,
| B B a a r b b | altum viditur.
| BBB aa a r bbb |
-----------------------------
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: FOL, ZFC, NGB and Prolog
- From: Tom
- Re: FOL, ZFC, NGB and Prolog
- References:
- FOL, ZFC, NGB and Prolog
- From: Tom
- Re: FOL, ZFC, NGB and Prolog
- From: Jim Spriggs
- Re: FOL, ZFC, NGB and Prolog
- From: Tom
- FOL, ZFC, NGB and Prolog
- Prev by Date: Re: A Repeat for SCI.MATH
- Next by Date: Re: Boolean expression sought for
- Previous by thread: Re: FOL, ZFC, NGB and Prolog
- Next by thread: Re: FOL, ZFC, NGB and Prolog
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading