Water over the bridge
Lynn H. Maxson
lmaxson@pacbell.net
Wed, 28 Jun 2000 08:03:46 -0700 (PDT)
Brian Rice wrote:"I'm only replying to statements
which clearly lead to conclusions, which none of
the rest of your statements have done. Please don't
rant so without some technical proposals which are
non-vacuous: simply applying to predicate logic
without detailing the consequences or asking us
questions about any information we may have gained
is absolutely rude and sheerly arrogant. We've
already discussed this on IRC, and you obviously
have not listened.
For reasons not clear to me since my first innocent
venture onto the IRC I have managed to incense
Brian to the point at one time he "threw" me out of
the session. I have been accused of making vacuous
statements. I look at what I write and what Fare
has written on the website relative to the Tunes
HLL and in the glossary and must admit I am
confused about what is so clear there and so
vacuous in what I have written. When I did take
the time to read the Arrow documentation I am
informed by its author that it is "blue sky" and
should be ignored. Clearly, however, in his eyes
it is not vacuous.<g>
Apparently an initiation rite exists for us
"newbies" so that we do not test the patience of
our learned instructors. It involves reading all
the archived material including the logs of the IRC
session (where "we discussed this and you were not
listening") as well as the websites and links along
with various doctoral thesis that get referenced in
this mailing list. Then when you venture onto the
IRC session you discover there is an entrance exam,
which is not mentioned in the friendly and open
invitation on the website, conducted by the
"master" himself. If you fail to answer
satisfactory, then you are ejected from the
classroom. But then again what can anyone who is
"absolutelyrude and sheerly arrogant" expect?<g>
I didn't enter this looking for a fight despite any
differences that might exist. I had thought it was
an open discussion among peers. I am not used to
an environment where someone decides who is a peer
and who is not. For me the object is to enable a
peer relationship through my assistance, not to set
up barriers for someone to overcome.
"If you'll read up on a system explanation I'm
working on which you declined earlier to entertain,
you'll find that we're working on that idea already
in Slate, and it has nothing to do with the form of
predicate logic (which is hardly uniform in the
sense that Tunes abstractions must be). Predicate
logic has scores of problems in terms of omplexity,
and higher-order predeicate logic is just
horrendous as a Tunes HLL."
To me logic is logic regardless of its form. That
I might entertain the predicate logic of Trilogy
and the Z-specification language over that of
clausal logic of Prolog reflects no more than a
toss of the coin. It is not important as long as
the language encompasses all of formal logic and
the universe of objects. There is nothing
occurring in Slate or in anything that it can
achieve which is not based on logic.
The charge is that my choice of predicate logic
somehow violates the Tunes "uniformity"
requirement. Moreover it has "scores of problems
in terms of complexity" and "simply horrendous as a
Tunes HLL". Of course if I happen to differ with
that judgement, it apparently is not open to
discussion nor am I given any reference to the
"scores of problems" or "horrendous" examples. I
am to accept the judgement without supporting
evidence, leaving me with no means of
rehabilitation.<g>
The truth is I don't buy it as all evidence in the
reference material I have (which includes the--at
least one--Slate document) doesn't support the
conclusions. I have some experience in programming
in first, second, and third generation languages,
all procedural logic (logic in programming) and
only recently in fourth generation specification
languages based on logic programming (programming
in logic). I have training in rule-based AI
systems as well as neural logic.
I've simply said that I favor a specification
language (fourth generation) as a Tunes HLL. My
primary experience here has been with Trilogy,
Prolog, and SQL. I like them because I can
"specify" what I want and the controlling
conditions without concern for their order. What
you enter is an unordered set of specifications,
from a single specification statement on up to a
set of specification statements which could
encompass an entire application system (or set of
such systems) or an operating system. I as a user
then am not forced into arbitrary "decompositions"
dictated by the "scope of compilation" in a product
as determined by its implementers. Instead I as a
user determine that scope by my selection of input.
That means as I grow from neophyte to master, as I
incrementally increase the (unordered) set of input
specifications to ever increasing scope, that the
tool accommodates my dictates, my choices, my way
of doing things. All I have to do is write a
specification, something in the "small" that
experience has shown humans can do with great
accuracy (error free), and cluster them in the
"large" that experience has shown software can do
with great accuracy. It allows then the "best" of
both worlds.
Now Prolog makes the mistake made by every other
compiler of limiting the scope of compilation to a
single executable defined in a manner logically
equivalent to an external procedure in C. I
propose eliminating that restriction, allowing the
input to dictate the scope of compilation and thus
the number of executables produced. This allows
then a "unit of work", that processed as a whole
with syntax, semantics, proof theory, and meta
theory, to be as large as the "comfort zone" of the
user and to expand as it expands.
I guess I challenge any statement that the
specification language used in this, which is the
only language (necessary and sufficient) used from
in defining itself to any of its implementations,
is more complex than or horrendous than Slate as a
Tunes HLL. The single language encompasses
specification of machine architectures upward
through all higher level (software) abstractions,
any combination of which may exist as an input set
of (unordered) specifications for processing as a
"unit of work".
Despite this I am not engaged in a "sales job" here
of anything more than consideration of a
specification language based on logic programming
as the more appropriate Tunes HLL. Except as we
can compare "examples" of the candidates I make no
pre-judgments of the value of one over the other.
The essence is to have a discussion in which all
participants have their say and come away more
enlightened.
" This is for the sake of simplifying reflection;
by your standards, a GNU/Linux installation is
reflective as long as someone delivers its' Z
specification with it (assuming one can be made)."
Again thank you for asking.<g> But I think you
have me confused with someone else. Not my
standard.