XPost: sci.logic
On 03/01/2025 21:04, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
Partial and tentative:
```
Functional = Closures/applications, Reduction/canonicity
/ |
Logical | = Predicates/queries, Resolution/subsumption
\ |
Imperative = Procedures/invocations, Execution/...
```
And there are two views of that triangle: Logical is the top of the
*ideal* such triangle, along the lines of a universe with Prop on top,
which we can reason with; Imperative is the bottom of a *concrete* such triangle, the bootstrap as well as the final point of application of any concrete system.
And Logical is the constructive (structural) type-theory founding the Functional, where Functional exists for expressivity and modularity
(what else?), plus can be compiled back/down to machine language...
Right?
BTW, there are deficiencies of standard Prolog that are indeed very
annoying, to the point that some invoke for the other way round:
HANSEI / Re-thinking Prolog <
https://okmij.org/ftp/kakuritu/logic-programming.html#vs-prolog>
But, besides that I would not put logic in terms of "guessing", I'd
propose we just need a Prolog that doesn't have the self-inflicted
quirks: a strengthened resolution with declarative determinism and
indexing, and a strengthened semantics, of variables and/vs open terms,
with a partial order of terms by subsumption, and unifiability as
comparability (a purely structural type system definitionally), i.e.
where a variable is the most general term... Or something like that.
No?
-Julio
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)