Hi all, are there any updates on this topic? Tahnks
El martes, 27 de diciembre de 2016, 6:24:48 (UTC+1), Jason Hemann escribió: > > Ken, > > That's on the order of what I was expecting, although it's more > sophisticated than I'd figured on. > > * Feature constraints sound promising, but AFAIK not implemented in any > Kanrens > * Your encoding is pretty darn cool, but it maybe isn't the clearest way > to encode the data. > > The other options I'm coming up with are: > > * hack up the unifier and add it there > * implement a feature-structure-unify as a miniKanren relation. > > I think the final choice is the traditional way to do this in Prolog, yes? > > JBH > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Chung-chieh Shan <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> But we want the alists >> ((a . _.0) (b . y)) >> and >> ((b . _.1) (a . x)) >> to unify, yielding the mgu >> ((a . x) (b . y)) >> or equivalently >> ((b . y) (a . x)) >> >> And we want the alists >> ((a . x)) >> and >> ((b . y)) >> to unify, yielding the same mgu as above. >> >> So the only way I know to encode (even unnested) feature structures >> using trees is to map each feature name to a globally fixed address >> in a binary tree. For example if we decide globally that "a" maps >> to the address (left left right) and "b" maps to the address >> (left right right left) then the alist above >> ((a . _.0) (b . y)) >> can be encoded by the tree >> (((_.2 . _.0) . (_.3 . (y . _.4))) . _.5) >> >> Maybe this is what Jason has in mind? It's related to expressing >> memoization as a lazy data structure. >> >> On 2016-12-24T12:07:14-0500, Dan Friedman wrote: >> > I agree with Jason, processing alists (even split alists)i standard >> fare. >> > Nested alists might want some constraints Haven't given that >> observation >> > much thought. >> > >> > On Sat, Dec 24, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Jason Hemann <[email protected] >> <javascript:>> >> > wrote: >> > > I think these can be encoded using trees, yes? (Wiki seems to also >> suggest >> > > so, if I'm reading that correctly). I know of no implementations that >> > > implement feature constraints presently, but I know those have been >> investigated >> > > in other contexts >> > > <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0743106694900442>. >> > > >> > > On Sat, Dec 24, 2016 at 8:06 AM, Amirouche Boubekki < >> > > [email protected] <javascript:>> wrote: >> > > >> > >> Did anyone implement minikanren for feature structure >> > >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feature_structure>? >> >> -- >> Edit this signature at http://conway.bostoncoop.net/~ccshan/cgi-bin/sig >> Information is not knowledge. Knowledge is not wisdom. Wisdom is not >> truth. >> Truth is not beauty. Beauty is not love. Love is not music. Music is THE >> BEST. >> ― Frank Zappa >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "minikanren" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected] <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected] >> <javascript:>. >> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/minikanren. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > > > -- > JBH > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "minikanren" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/minikanren. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
