any big lispprogram includes prolog?
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1558601910/002-6413815-3000828?v=glance&n=283155
from user reviews:
So, should this book be read as an exhortation to return to Lisp as
the preferred programming language?
Paradoxically, I think not. One third of the way through the book,
Norvig shows us how to implement Prolog in Lisp. From then on out,
most of the AI techniques he presents either directly use Prolog
instead of Lisp (such as his excellent discussion of natural language
processing using Prolog) or use Prolog as a base to build on (such as
his discussions on knowledge representation).
From this we can abstract what I'd like to call Norvig's Corollary to
Greenspun's Tenth Law of Programming: "Any sufficiently complicated
LISP program is going to contain a slow implementation of half of
Prolog". I'm leaving out the "ad hoc", "bug-ridden" part of
Greenspuns's law, because Norvig's programs are neither. But it is
quite remarkable the degree to which, once having absorbed Prolog,
Norvig uses Prolog as the basis for further development, rather than
Lisp.
Is this a book about Prolog then? Again, no. What is the take-away
message? It is this: as our world becomes more and more complex, and
as the problems which programmers are facing become more and more
complex, we have to program at a higher and higher level.
true?
globalrev wrote:
> any big lispprogram includes prolog?
>
>
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1558601910/002-6413815-3000828?v=glance&n=283155
>
> from user reviews:
>
> So, should this book be read as an exhortation to return to Lisp as
> the preferred programming language?
>
> Paradoxically, I think not. One third of the way through the book,
> Norvig shows us how to implement Prolog in Lisp. From then on out,
> most of the AI techniques he presents either directly use Prolog
> instead of Lisp (such as his excellent discussion of natural language
> processing using Prolog) or use Prolog as a base to build on (such as
> his discussions on knowledge representation).
>
> From this we can abstract what I'd like to call Norvig's Corollary to
> Greenspun's Tenth Law of Programming: "Any sufficiently complicated
> LISP program is going to contain a slow implementation of half of
> Prolog". I'm leaving out the "ad hoc", "bug-ridden" part of
> Greenspuns's law, because Norvig's programs are neither. But it is
> quite remarkable the degree to which, once having absorbed Prolog,
> Norvig uses Prolog as the basis for further development, rather than
> Lisp.
You are talking about a guy who now programs exclusively in Python and
who thinks Python is Lisp. I suppose you also listen to George Bush on
foreign policy and war criminology.
It is fine that Norvig and Bush have fucked up -- people do these
things. It is not fine that you have made them your heros.
As Sarte explained, you are not free to be not free. Go ahead, be a
moron, but don't be pathetic and palm it off on Norvig.
kenny
--
http://smuglispweeny.blogspot.com/
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
ECLM rant:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1331906677993764413&hl=en
ECLM talk:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9173722505157942928&q=&hl=en
Ken Tilton wrote:
>
> You are talking about a guy who now programs exclusively in Python and
> who thinks Python is Lisp. I suppose you also listen to George Bush on
> foreign policy and war criminology.
Bingo ! Just a few days after 9/11, Python passed the Türing test with a
one-liner, by supporting Bush in full phase with the people of the USA to which
its creator, Guido van Rossum, had just emigrated.
Witness the fascinating value to which the following python expression evals :
filter(lambda W : W not in 'ILLITERATE','BULLSHIT')
Can Lisp achieve as well ?
Cheers, BB
Boris Borcic <·······@gmail.com> writes:
> Python passed the T�ring test
Wh� is T�ring? N�v�r h��rd �f.
> Can Lisp achieve as well ?
I'm not very into Python, but I think you're looking for REMOVE-IF and
REMOVE-IF-NOT.
--
(espen)
Boris Borcic escribi�:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>>
>> You are talking about a guy who now programs exclusively in Python and
>> who thinks Python is Lisp. I suppose you also listen to George Bush on
>> foreign policy and war criminology.
>
> Bingo ! Just a few days after 9/11, Python passed the T�ring test with a
> one-liner, by supporting Bush in full phase with the people of the USA
> to which its creator, Guido van Rossum, had just emigrated.
>
> Witness the fascinating value to which the following python expression
> evals :
>
> filter(lambda W : W not in 'ILLITERATE','BULLSHIT')
>
> Can Lisp achieve as well ?
>
> Cheers, BB
(remove-if #'(lambda (w) (find w "ILLITERATE")) "BULLSHIT")
Leandro
>> Ken Tilton wrote:
>>> who thinks Python is Lisp. I suppose you also listen to George Bush on
>>> foreign policy and war criminology.
>>
>> Bingo ! Just a few days after 9/11, Python passed the T�ring test with a
>> one-liner, by supporting Bush in full phase with the people of the USA
>> to which its creator, Guido van Rossum, had just emigrated.
>>
>> filter(lambda W : W not in 'ILLITERATE','BULLSHIT')
>>
> (remove-if #'(lambda (w) (find w "ILLITERATE")) "BULLSHIT")
I suppose you haters are going to claim that all prior administrations
were pure as the driven snow and never had a pinocchio nose problem.
--
One of the strokes of genius from McCarthy
was making lists the center of the language - kt
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
GP lisper wrote:
>>>Ken Tilton wrote:
>>>
>>>>who thinks Python is Lisp. I suppose you also listen to George Bush on
>>>>foreign policy and war criminology.
>>>
>>>Bingo ! Just a few days after 9/11, Python passed the T�ring test with a
>>>one-liner, by supporting Bush in full phase with the people of the USA
>>>to which its creator, Guido van Rossum, had just emigrated.
>>>
>>>filter(lambda W : W not in 'ILLITERATE','BULLSHIT')
>>>
>>
>>(remove-if #'(lambda (w) (find w "ILLITERATE")) "BULLSHIT")
>
>
> I suppose you haters are going to claim that all prior administrations
> were pure as the driven snow and never had a pinocchio nose problem.
No hate. Well, maybe Cheney, but I am not sure he is human, he might be
Evil Incarnate or something. And it is not about honesty, though the
clever word transformation above is -- it is about needless human suffering.
Bush has my compassion: for the rest of his life he will be haunted by
what he did and that will be a hell on earth. For years now he has been
muttering "war on terror" like Hoffman in Rain Man -- something tells me
it is not helping.
We the People people meanwhile get off scot free, when it is we who are
at fault, especially the Congress that voted for the war. That call
alone gives Obama a lot of cred.
kt
--
http://smuglispweeny.blogspot.com/
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
ECLM rant:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1331906677993764413&hl=en
ECLM talk:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9173722505157942928&q=&hl=en
Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>
> GP lisper wrote:
>
>>>> Ken Tilton wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> who thinks Python is Lisp. I suppose you also listen to George Bush
>>>>> on foreign policy and war criminology.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bingo ! Just a few days after 9/11, Python passed the T�ring test
>>>> with a one-liner, by supporting Bush in full phase with the people
>>>> of the USA to which its creator, Guido van Rossum, had just emigrated.
>>>>
>>>> filter(lambda W : W not in 'ILLITERATE','BULLSHIT')
>>>>
>>>
>>> (remove-if #'(lambda (w) (find w "ILLITERATE")) "BULLSHIT")
>>
>>
>>
>> I suppose you haters are going to claim that all prior administrations
>> were pure as the driven snow and never had a pinocchio nose problem.
>
>
> No hate. Well, maybe Cheney, but I am not sure he is human, he might be
> Evil Incarnate or something. And it is not about honesty, though the
> clever word transformation above is -- it is about needless human
> suffering.
>
> Bush has my compassion: for the rest of his life he will be haunted by
> what he did and that will be a hell on earth. For years now he has been
> muttering "war on terror" like Hoffman in Rain Man --
Right on cue: "President Bush launched a sharp but veiled attack
Thursday on Sen. Barack Obama and other Democrats, suggesting they favor
"appeasement" of terrorists in the same way some Western leaders
appeased Hitler in the run-up to World War II."
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/15/bush.dems/index.html
Does the Hitler reference mean he has to stop talking now and just go
hunting until 01/09?
kt
--
http://smuglispweeny.blogspot.com/
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
ECLM rant:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1331906677993764413&hl=en
ECLM talk:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9173722505157942928&q=&hl=en
Now that this whole thread has gone from Python to political. I have
to agree that both sides of the isle have to look at each other and
realize how dumb they were/are being.
I am one of those Ron Paul people, that apparently don't really exist.
Is he perfect, no, but returning to the original dream of Thomas
Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, etc. speaks to me in a
big way. Kind of like returning to the principle ideas of Lisp, after
trying out Pascal and VB.
William
On Thu, 15 May 2008 13:32:39 -0400, Ken Tilton wrote:
> Does the Hitler reference mean he has to stop talking now and just go
> hunting until 01/09?
>
> kt
He got spanked in several places considering Grandpa Prescott's
maladventures.
As for the people being responsible? Gullible, hells yeah, responsible,
no. Just who was it who started the meme that the Germans attacked
instead of Hitler? Or that America attacked not Bush?
It's the leaders who associate themselves with the name of the land, who
pass on their guilt onto you and yours so that those from afar can't tell
and blame the wrong people.
The fact the German populace did nothing and sang louder in class while
the train with Jews passed is very disturbing in its own right. You'll
note however many have screamed about Guantanamo.
This is some professional hardcore brainwashing we're under. The question
is who will scream when they start taking people to the Haliburton FEMA
camps?
--
http://dihymo.blogspot.com
In article <·······················@phoenix.clouddancer.com>,
GP lisper <········@CloudDancer.com> wrote:
> >> Ken Tilton wrote:
> >>> who thinks Python is Lisp. I suppose you also listen to George Bush on
> >>> foreign policy and war criminology.
> >>
> >> Bingo ! Just a few days after 9/11, Python passed the T�ring test with a
> >> one-liner, by supporting Bush in full phase with the people of the USA
> >> to which its creator, Guido van Rossum, had just emigrated.
> >>
> >> filter(lambda W : W not in 'ILLITERATE','BULLSHIT')
> >>
> > (remove-if #'(lambda (w) (find w "ILLITERATE")) "BULLSHIT")
>
> I suppose you haters are going to claim that all prior administrations
> were pure as the driven snow and never had a pinocchio nose problem.
Bush removed the CL-HTTP/Lisp-based publication site from
the White House. That alone should be punished!
--
http://lispm.dyndns.org/
GP lisper wrote:
> I suppose you haters are going to claim that all prior administrations
> were pure as the driven snow and never had a pinocchio nose problem.
>
"various previous X also sucked" is not a good reason not to criticise
the current X.
On Thu, 15 May 2008 03:31:37 -0700, GP lisper wrote:
> I suppose you haters are going to claim that all prior administrations
> were pure as the driven snow and never had a pinocchio nose problem.
diversion, bad form. there ain't nothing true to the faith about the
clown in charge
--
http://dihymo.blogspot.com
P� Wed, 14 May 2008 06:49:43 +0200, skrev globalrev <·········@yahoo.se>:
> any big lispprogram includes prolog?
>
>
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1558601910/002-6413815-3000828?v=glance&n=283155
>
> from user reviews:
>
> So, should this book be read as an exhortation to return to Lisp as
> the preferred programming language?
>
> Paradoxically, I think not. One third of the way through the book,
> Norvig shows us how to implement Prolog in Lisp. From then on out,
> most of the AI techniques he presents either directly use Prolog
> instead of Lisp (such as his excellent discussion of natural language
> processing using Prolog) or use Prolog as a base to build on (such as
> his discussions on knowledge representation).
>
> From this we can abstract what I'd like to call Norvig's Corollary to
> Greenspun's Tenth Law of Programming: "Any sufficiently complicated
> LISP program is going to contain a slow implementation of half of
> Prolog". I'm leaving out the "ad hoc", "bug-ridden" part of
> Greenspuns's law, because Norvig's programs are neither. But it is
> quite remarkable the degree to which, once having absorbed Prolog,
> Norvig uses Prolog as the basis for further development, rather than
> Lisp.
>
> Is this a book about Prolog then? Again, no. What is the take-away
> message? It is this: as our world becomes more and more complex, and
> as the problems which programmers are facing become more and more
> complex, we have to program at a higher and higher level.
>
>
> true?
If you have followed AI in recent years you would know that logical
inference alone is not enough for most AI problems. You also need genetic
algorithms, neural net's, fuzzy logic, Bayesian reasoning etc..
AI was always just a bag of unrelated tricks to mimic behaviour associated
with intelligence.
As such Prolog alone is too overspecialized. To capture all the new
paradigms that come along the language needs to absorb them and allow you
to embed them into the language. Did I hear Lisp?
--------------
John Thingstad
On Tue, 13 May 2008 21:49:43 -0700, globalrev wrote:
> any big lispprogram includes prolog?
>
>
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1558601910/002-6413815-3000828?
v=glance&n=283155
>
> from user reviews:
>
> So, should this book be read as an exhortation to return to Lisp as the
> preferred programming language?
>
> Paradoxically, I think not. One third of the way through the book,
> Norvig shows us how to implement Prolog in Lisp. From then on out, most
> of the AI techniques he presents either directly use Prolog instead of
> Lisp (such as his excellent discussion of natural language processing
> using Prolog) or use Prolog as a base to build on (such as his
> discussions on knowledge representation).
>
> From this we can abstract what I'd like to call Norvig's Corollary to
> Greenspun's Tenth Law of Programming: "Any sufficiently complicated LISP
> program is going to contain a slow implementation of half of Prolog".
> I'm leaving out the "ad hoc", "bug-ridden" part of Greenspuns's law,
> because Norvig's programs are neither. But it is quite remarkable the
> degree to which, once having absorbed Prolog, Norvig uses Prolog as the
> basis for further development, rather than Lisp.
>
> Is this a book about Prolog then? Again, no. What is the take-away
> message? It is this: as our world becomes more and more complex, and as
> the problems which programmers are facing become more and more complex,
> we have to program at a higher and higher level.
>
>
> true?
That's like a jukebox that only plays one song and the mallet you want to
use to break the damn thing is sold at the counter for $1000. Supply and
demand.
If you are building a system that involves Prolog that does not preclude
features that involve making Prolog try to brainstorm, which it can't
easily do.
--
http://dihymo.blogspot.com