Re: deductive databases

From: alex goldman <hello_at_spamm.er>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 09:28:26 -0700
Message-ID: <1899644.fjLQxIh7K2@yahoo.com>

VC wrote:

> 
> "alex goldman" <hello_at_spamm.er> wrote in message
> news:1741495.boTg3PEKqR_at_yahoo.com...

>> VC wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "alex goldman" <hello_at_spamm.er> wrote in message
>>> news:2833197.QA2ogCgjIP_at_yahoo.com...
>>>> ......"[In first-order logic, the term]
>>>> `function' is better used for predicates that possess certain
>>>> properties (determinism)"
>>>
>>> What's that supposed to mean ?
>>
>> Look, anonymous troll, I was hoping you'd follow the link to Quinlan's
>> paper
>>
>> J.R. Quinlan. Learning first-order definitions of *functions* . Journal
>> of Artificial Intelligence Research, 5:139-161, 1996.
>>
>> and find that he means by "function" exactly what I alluded to. And I'm
>> sure
>> you did, but being a troll, you just continue trolling instead of
>> admitting
>> you were wrong, namely
>>
>> 1. Very knowledgeable people use the term "function" to refer to certain
>> kinds of predicates.
>>

>
> Are you familiar with the notion of "argumentum ad verecundiam " ?

Idiot, you told me to go read prolog 101 for the very thing Quinlan is doing. Do you think he should do that too, Mr. anon?

> 

>> 2. FOL courses are being taught where the term "functor" is used in place
>> of
>> "function symbol"
>>
>> (Which, as I already indicated, is justified in view of #1 and Prolog
>> practice)

> 
> FOL ain't Prolog,  and the "very knowledgeable people",  whoever they are,
> do their students a disservice by using a sloppy language.

You claimed "There is no FOL with functors". Well, I gave you proof that there is. Why aren't you satisfied? (Rhetoric question, you are just a troll, after all)

>> 3. You are an idiot because you resorted to insults (go read prolog 101,
>> etc.) because your prefered terminology (if there ever was one) differs
>> from mine.
>>
>> 4. Saying " `for_any X Y : car(cons(X,Y), X)` does not make any sense
>> because it's missing a period at the end" is a sign of utter stupidy
>> and/or
>> trolling.

> 
> In Prolog, the string  `for_any X Y : car(cons(X,Y), X)` does not make any
> syntactical sense wven with a dot.

Of course the string is not valid Prolog, but claiming it does not make any sense because it's missing a period at the end is a sign of utter stupidity and/or trolling. Received on Wed May 18 2005 - 11:28:26 CDT