Rich, (01)
I was not talking about logic programming languages. The point I
was trying to make is that digital computers are logic machines. (02)
JFS
> ... logic is simpler and more general than any programming language.
> Anything you can represent in any program can be defined in logic
> in a way that's independent of the many constantly changing features
> of NLs and programming languages. (03)
RC
> I strongly disagree with this judgment. Logic programming languages
> such as prolog, or rule based expert systems are deceptively simple,
> and don't cover all the functionality that a programming language covers. (04)
I wasn't talking about programming styles. I agree that some kinds
of transformations are easier to state in one notation or another.
But every step in any notation can be specified in logic: (05)
1. The total content of any digital computer and all the devices
connected to it is a logical statement: a conjunction of zeros
and ones at various positions. (06)
2. Every operation by the computer transforms some part of that
Boolean statement to a different Boolean statement. (07)
3. Therefore, there is no function that a programming language
can specify that cannot be defined in logic. (08)
This just demonstrates the possibility. In practice, of course,
you break up the specification into more convenient chunks. (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)
|