Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!mcvax!ukc!etive!lfcs!jha From: jha@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Jamie Andrews) Newsgroups: comp.lang.prolog Subject: Re: Random Clause Selection (was: re:probabilstic or) Keywords: meta interpreter, random, probabilistic, completeness, loops Message-ID: <732@etive.ed.ac.uk> Date: 25 Aug 88 15:20:10 GMT References: <1171@tuhold> <308@quintus.UUCP> Sender: news@etive.ed.ac.uk Reply-To: jha@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Jamie Andrews) Organization: Laboratory for the Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh U Lines: 31 >In article <1171@tuhold> thom@tuhold (Thom Fruehwirth) writes: >>As Jamie Andrews in <628@etive.ed.ac.uk> pointed out, O'Keefe probably >>intended to have a cut between random_permutation/2 and member/2. Actually, the point I was making was that random_permutation/2 would either return 7! results (not good) or else introduce additional incompleteness into the system (returns only one of the possible results) which random clause selection would not. If we accept the incompleteness arising from allowing cut, though, it wouldn't make much difference that random_permutation/2 returned only one result, since the effect of it would be the same as if it were followed by a cut. In article <308@quintus.UUCP> ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: