Re: FOL, ZFC, NGB and Prolog

Tom 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.

Prolog, like all reasonable programming languages, is Turing complete.
But not every wff of FOL is meaningful to Prolog. Also in Prolog id
something cannot be proved it is deemed to be false.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: predicate in a predicate
    ... Prolog is somehow from Horn Clauses, they can have at most one ... how can I convert the FOL that have two positive ... With negation as failure you can go beyond horn clauses. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: FOL, ZFC, NGB and Prolog
    ... >> Tom wrote: ... >>> merely, FOL in executable notation. ... Prolog is much more restrictive than FOL. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: predicate in a predicate
    ... Prolog is somehow from Horn Clauses, they can have at most one ... how can I convert the FOL that have two positive ... With negation as failure you can go beyond horn clauses. ... positivity check is ok, so this amounts to prolog as: ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: FOL, ZFC, NGB and Prolog
    ... > The issue here isn't about computational power but about expressiveness. ... there is no direct Prolog translation of this FOL: ... Thank you very much for another kind and meaningful comment, Ms Knox. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: FOL, ZFC, NGB and Prolog
    ... > Tom wrote: ... >> merely, FOL in executable notation. ... Prolog is much more restrictive than FOL. ...
    (sci.logic)