On 3/24/2012 3:35 PM, Simon Spero wrote:
> In the case of prolog, we're never in P to begin with... (01)
Right. All useful programming languages are undecidable, and
Prolog is an application of logic-based methods to programming. (02)
> With prolog, the biggest problem is that, by requiring all
> possible proof trees to be explored, any infinite search trees
> that might not be explored in a successful positive query will
> lead to non-termination in what should be a successful negative
> query. (03)
That is not a problem. It is an option. The procedural aspects
of Prolog enable the programmer to control how much and how
the proof tree should be explored. (04)
I keep citing Experian and Mathematica as two companies that have
successfully used Prolog-based methods as a foundation for their
businesses. Experian in particular processes huge amounts of
Big Data in evaluating everybody's credit worthiness -- and they
bought Colmerauer's company Prologia so that they could get the
expertise to extend the techniques further. (Unfortunately,
they're very secretive, and they don't say what they're doing.) (05)
The worst problem is that some people have been taught that
very complex issues can be boiled down to a mindless slogan: (06)
"Ontology languages must be decidable." (07)
People who have no clue about the issues of computational complexity
and decidability have been taught to parrot such slogans. (08)
As a result, they end up applying tools they don't understand to
applications they don't understand in ways they don't understand. (09)
John (010)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (011)
|