On 1/31/2018 2:51 PM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
> On Jan 31, 2018, at 2:15 PM, George Neuner <gneun...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > On 1/31/2018 2:10 PM, Sam Caldwell wrote:
>> Your definition of `ancestor` is one or two steps of parentage:
>> >> > ancestor(A, B) :- parent(A, B).
>> > ancestor(A, B) :-
>>       parent(A, C),
>>       parent(C, B).
>> >> I suspect you want one of those lines to appeal to the `ancestor` relation to allow longer chains. > > Knowing nothing about datalog he asks naively: > > Shouldn't the rule ancestor(A, B) :- parent(A, C), parent(C, B). be applied recursively?

It is — except that there’s no recursion.

> Kevin's definition would work in Prolog.

No it wouldn’t.

Sorry ... brain freeze.   Somehow I misread Kevin's code as being

      ancestor(A, B) :- parent(A, C), ancestor(C, B).

which would work.    You and Sam both are absolutely correct that it does not work as written.

Apologies for the noise.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket 
Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to