Re: deductive databases

"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 " ?

> 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.

>
> 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. Received on Wed May 18 2005 - 12:10:36 CEST