Re: deductive databases

Jan Hidders wrote:

> alex goldman wrote:

>> 
>> It's interesting that just yesterday you said that   car(cons(X, Y), X)
>> "does not make any sense", and today you know the one and only true way
>> of Prolog. Now, scram, troll.

Sometimes, a person asking questions might know that some answers are quite incorrect.

For instance, someone asking whether SQL has functors might know that having functors is a big deal. First-order logic without functors is far less expressive. The restricted language is called Datalog. The inference in Datalog is decidable and the inference in First-order logic isn't.

When someone like you gives an obviously misinformed "answer" that having functors is as interesting as whether SQL can make coffee, you should be grateful when I take time to point that out <message-id:3907907.uYUagk22Ws_at_yahoo.com>

But I can see that you choose to act upset instead.

OTOH VC is just a plain insulting troll, as anyone reading this thread in chronological order can tell. He claimed "car(cons(X,Y), X). " does not make any sense (not to him, just not any sense, period). Or take this insulting little nugget:

> Please read , like, a book or something on Prolog 101 before trying
> to mislead a lot of people.

Which the VC troll wrote in response to "[In first-order logic, the term] `function' is better used for predicates that possess certain properties (determinism)"

I think the insulting ignoramus should tell that to Quinlan too:

http://www-ai.ijs.si/~ilpnet2/systems/ffoil.html Received on Mon May 16 2005 - 18:35:57 CEST