# Re: Not/1 Not `Not' in Logic ??

Cesar Rabak wrote:

The topic you put in the subject line says about the predicate not/1 in
Prolog be or not 'NOT' in logic.

The answer to this as a lot of people have told you in this NG is that
this is _not_ the case and that a lot of people very knowledgeable in
Logic, Standard writting and Prolog found the best description for \+/1
predicate, now in the ISO standard is "not provable".

Do you understand this in plain and simple words?

So many words to type , aren't you tired ?
But I am very tired on reading.

Just a few questions :
If not/1 is not `not' in logic , then is `true' truely true in logic ?
If both `not' and `true' not those in logic , is Prolog still
"PROgrammation en LOGique" ?

May I ask whether a list of atoms is an atom?

What's the concept of 'atom' in Logic?

You are not a lay man , you must get the answer.

The answer will depend on the set of axioms you assemble for the system
that defines "atom" and "list of atoms".

Without those formal and consistent definitions, any answer will as good

You are keeping trying to escape from my question.
If you are not a "lay person" as you mentioned ,
why do you do that ?

If it is difficult for you to answer the question ,
let the "ISO" tell you (because you always like to say 'ISO')
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Welcome to SWI-Prolog (Multi-threaded, Version 5.2.13)
Copyright (c) 1990-2003 University of Amsterdam.
SWI-Prolog comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY. This is free software,
and you are welcome to redistribute it under certain conditions.

For help, use ?- help(Topic). or ?- apropos(Word).

1 ?- atom(d).

Yes
2 ?- atom([d,d,d]).

No
3 ?-
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
GNU Prolog 1.2.16
By Daniel Diaz
| ?- atom(d).

yes
| ?- atom([d,d,d]).

no
| ?-
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
And BTW, you must stop being childish and writing in chalenging style
"Now , answer me !" it does not make your knowledge any better or
worse, but surely will bore people of paying attention to your queries.

If you felt offended by this sentence , then tell me who said "lay
person"
first ? It is you who started the imploliteness , and now you do that
again,
childish ? Humph! Humph! Humph !

This is an open discussion , thus questioning and answering are what
we are supposed to do. But your words such as "lay person" 'childish'
"stubborn " should disappear from open discussion . Don't do that
again.

.