Comments below (01)
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2 (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)
RC:
OK, mathematically that is correct in the same way
that a Turing machine is equivalent to Deep Blue.
But given the chance to choose which one to
program, I wouldn't spend much energy on the
Turing machine. (011)
-Rich (012)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (013)
|