
Re: PREDICATE CALCULUS 2
Posted:
Nov 28, 2012 11:16 PM


On Nov 28, 8:59 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 29, 8:42 am, Dan Christensen <Dan_Christen...@sympatico.ca> > wrote: > > > > PROLOG is just the UNIFY( f1(..) , f1(...) ) > > > I would love to be proven wrong, but I don't think you will get very > > far in abstract mathematics using only PROLOG. If you are still > > determined to used PROLOG, you might look at Norm Megill's MetaMath > > program  the gold standard of mechanized rigour IMHO. It is very > > small program and, as I understand, is based entirely on making > > symbolic substitutions. Your "facts" would be facts about formuala's, > > not individual objects. Just maybe you can implement it in PROLOG. > > Write to Norm. He will be able to advise you. He probably knows PROLOG > > as well. > > Right, metamath uses Reverse Polish Notation > > 7 , 3 + >  > 10 > > and you guessed it  UNIFY() to do the matching. > > ... > > RPN is equivalent to > > A & B > C > > that is why my Inference Rules > (and PROLOG CLAUSES themselves) > > are of this form: > > OR > > if( and(X , Y ), or(X,Y) ). > if( and(not(X) , not(Y) ), not(or(X,Y)) ). > if( and(not(X) , Y ), or(X,Y) ). > if( and(X , not(Y) ), or(X,Y) ). > > TRANSITIVE IMPLICATION > > if( and(if(A,B) , if(B,C)), if(A,C) ). > > TRANSIVITIVE LESS THAN > > if( and(less(X,Y) , less(Y,Z)) , less(X,Z) ). > > etc. etc. Similar to Metamath RPN format and PROLOG CLAUSE format, > same matching technique too. > > But the advantage of using PROLOG is it is built for BACKWARD > CHAINING. > > MetaMath and DCProof are 'Natural Deduction' Logics  the Human writes > the proof! >
I'm not sure what all that means or how it is relevant, but why don't we just try that simple theorem again: {(x,y)  x in S, y=x} is a function mapping the set S onto itself  not just some particular set of names or whatever, but ANY set S, be it finite, infinite or empty. It's true in every case. Run it through your program and post the automatically generated proof here  one without any quantifiers whatsoever.
While you are at it, let's see its proof of the nonexistence of {x  ~x in x} and {x  x=x}.
What? It'll be a few more weeks? Take your time, Herc.
Dan Download my DC Proof 2.0 software at http://www.dcproof.com

