lec8b.eng.srt

1
00:00:18,910 --> 00:00:22,502
PROFESSOR: All right, well, we've seen how the query language works.

2
00:00:22,502 --> 00:00:26,280
Now, let's talk about how it's implemented.

3
00:00:26,280 --> 00:00:29,470
You already pretty much can guess what's going on there.

4
00:00:29,470 --> 00:00:32,810
At the bottom of it, there's a pattern matcher.

5
00:00:32,810 --> 00:00:38,110
And we looked at a pattern matcher when we did the rule-based control language.

6
00:00:38,110 --> 00:00:41,520
Just to remind you, here are some sample patterns.

7
00:00:41,520 --> 00:00:50,650
This is a pattern that will match any list of three things of which the first is a and the second is c and the middle one can be anything.

8
00:00:50,650 --> 00:00:54,050
So in this little pattern-matching syntax, there's only one distinction you make.

9
00:00:54,050 --> 00:00:59,080
There's either literal things or variables, and variables begin with question mark.

10
00:01:01,370 --> 00:01:06,500
So this matches any list of three things of which the first is a and the second is c.

11
00:01:06,500 --> 00:01:12,530
This one matches any list of three things of which the first is the symbol job.

12
00:01:12,530 --> 00:01:14,210
The second can be anything.

13
00:01:14,210 --> 00:01:20,480
And the third is a list of two things of which the first is the symbol computer and the second can be anything.

14
00:01:20,480 --> 00:01:37,860
And this one, this next one matches any list of three things, and the only difference is, here, the third list, the first is the symbol computer, and then there's some rest of the list. So this means two elements and this means arbitrary number.

15
00:01:37,860 --> 00:01:44,050
And our language implementation isn't even going to have to worry about implementing this dot because that's automatically done by Lisp's reader.

16
00:01:48,340 --> 00:01:50,310
Remember matchers also have some consistency in them.

17
00:01:50,310 --> 00:01:54,430
This match is a list of three things of which the first is a.

18
00:01:54,430 --> 00:01:57,940
And the second and third can be anything, but they have to be the same thing.

19
00:01:57,940 --> 00:01:59,600
They're both called x.

20
00:01:59,600 --> 00:02:05,590
And this matches a list of four things of which the first is the fourth and the second is the same as the third.

21
00:02:05,590 --> 00:02:09,685
And this last one matches any list that begins with a.

22
00:02:09,685 --> 00:02:14,040
The first thing is a, and the rest can be anything.

23
00:02:14,040 --> 00:02:18,780
So that's just a review of pattern matcher syntax that you've already seen.

24
00:02:18,780 --> 00:02:22,740
And remember, that's implemented by some procedure called match.

25
00:02:24,870 --> 00:02:35,695
And match takes a pattern and some data and a dictionary.

26
00:02:43,200 --> 00:02:58,160
And match asks the question is there any way to match this pattern against this data object subject to the bindings that are already in this dictionary?

27
00:02:58,160 --> 00:03:22,010
So, for instance, if we're going to match the pattern x, y, y, x against the data a, b, b, a subject to a dictionary, that says x equals a.

28
00:03:22,010 --> 00:03:25,260
Then the matcher would say, yes, that's consistent.

29
00:03:25,260 --> 00:03:30,320
These match, and it's consistent with what's in the dictionary to say that x equals a.

30
00:03:30,320 --> 00:03:39,490
And the result of the match is the extended dictionary that says x equals a and y equals b.

31
00:03:39,490 --> 00:03:46,840
So a matcher takes in pattern data dictionary, puts out an extended dictionary if it matches, or if it doesn't match, says that it fails.

32
00:03:46,840 --> 00:04:06,665
So, for example, if I use the same pattern here, if I say this x, y, y, x match a, b, b, a with the dictionary y equals a, then the matcher would put out fail.

33
00:04:12,150 --> 00:04:21,190
Well, you've already seen the code for a pattern matcher so I'm not going to go over it, but it's the same thing we've been doing before.

34
00:04:21,190 --> 00:04:23,220
You saw that in the system on rule-based control.

35
00:04:23,220 --> 00:04:24,950
It's essentially the same matcher.

36
00:04:24,950 --> 00:04:31,400
In fact, I think the syntax is a little bit simpler because we're not worrying about arbitrary constants and expressions and things.

37
00:04:31,400 --> 00:04:32,690
There's just variables and constants.

38
00:04:35,790 --> 00:04:39,610
OK, well, given that, what's a primitive query?

39
00:04:42,970 --> 00:04:46,720
Primitive query is going to be a rather complicated thing.

40
00:04:46,720 --> 00:05:03,490
It's going to be-- let's think about the query job of x is d dot y.

41
00:05:06,850 --> 00:05:09,400
That's a query we might type in.

42
00:05:09,400 --> 00:05:11,095
That's going to be implemented in the system.

43
00:05:14,270 --> 00:05:15,700
We'll think of it as this little box.

44
00:05:15,700 --> 00:05:18,880
Here's the primitive query.

45
00:05:18,880 --> 00:05:34,030
What this little box is going to do is take in two streams and put out a stream.

46
00:05:34,030 --> 00:05:41,120
So the shape of a primitive query is that it's a thing where two streams come in and one stream goes out.

47
00:05:41,120 --> 00:05:45,925
What these streams are going to be is down here is the database.

48
00:05:51,600 --> 00:06:00,330
So we imagine all the things in the database sort of sitting there in a stream and this thing sucks on them.

49
00:06:00,330 --> 00:06:02,800
So what are some things that might be in the database?

50
00:06:02,800 --> 00:06:25,770
Oh, job of Alyssa is something and some other job is something.

51
00:06:25,770 --> 00:06:32,040
So imagine all of the facts in the database sitting there in the stream.

52
00:06:32,040 --> 00:06:33,400
That's what comes in here.

53
00:06:33,400 --> 00:06:38,510
What comes in here is a stream of dictionaries.

54
00:06:38,510 --> 00:06:48,855
So one particular dictionary might say y equals programmer.

55
00:06:55,470 --> 00:07:11,390
Now, what the query does when it gets in a dictionary from this stream, it finds all possible ways of matching the query against whatever is coming in from the database.

56
00:07:11,390 --> 00:07:27,550
It looks at the query as a pattern, matches it against any fact from the database or all possible ways of finding and matching the database with respect to this dictionary that's coming in.

57
00:07:27,550 --> 00:07:35,110
So for each fact in the database, it calls the matcher using the pattern, fact, and dictionary.

58
00:07:35,110 --> 00:07:40,420
And every time it gets a good match, it puts out the extended dictionary.

59
00:07:40,420 --> 00:07:52,970
So, for example, if this one comes in and it finds a match, out will come a dictionary that in this case will have y equals programmer and x equals something.

60
00:07:56,740 --> 00:08:01,430
y is programmer, x is something, and d is whatever it found.

61
00:08:01,430 --> 00:08:03,520
And that's all.

62
00:08:03,520 --> 00:08:07,980
And, of course, it's going to try this for every fact in the dictionary.

63
00:08:07,980 --> 00:08:09,250
So it might find lots of them.

64
00:08:09,250 --> 00:08:16,355
It might find another one that says y equals programmer and x equals, and d equals.

65
00:08:20,040 --> 00:08:30,470
So for one frame coming in, it might put out-- for one dictionary coming in, it might put out a lot of dictionaries, or it might put out none.

66
00:08:30,470 --> 00:08:39,320
It might have something that wouldn't match like x equals FOO.

67
00:08:39,320 --> 00:08:47,510
This one might not match anything in which case nothing will go into this stream corresponding to this frame.

68
00:08:47,510 --> 00:09:07,570
Or what you might do is put in an empty frame, and an empty frame says try matching all ways--  find all possible ways of matching the query against something in the database subject to no previous restrictions.

69
00:09:07,570 --> 00:09:13,980
And if you think about what that means, that's just the computation that's done when you type in a query right off.

70
00:09:13,980 --> 00:09:16,650
It tries to find all matches.

71
00:09:16,650 --> 00:09:19,370
So a primitive query sets up this mechanism.

72
00:09:19,370 --> 00:09:44,990
And what the language does, when you type in the query at the top level, it takes this mechanism, feeds in one single empty dictionary, and then for each thing that comes out takes the original query and instantiates the result with all the different dictionaries, producing a new stream of instantiated patterns here.

73
00:09:44,990 --> 00:09:48,170
And that's what gets printed on the terminal.

74
00:09:48,170 --> 00:09:53,510
That's the basic mechanism going on there.

75
00:09:53,510 --> 00:09:56,870
Well, why is that so complicated?

76
00:09:56,870 --> 00:10:04,725
You probably can think of a lot simpler ways to arrange this match for a primitive query rather than having all of these streams floating around.

77
00:10:04,725 --> 00:10:10,860
And the answer is-- you probably guess already.

78
00:10:10,860 --> 00:10:17,790
The answer is this thing extends elegantly to implement the means of combination.

79
00:10:17,790 --> 00:10:22,470
So, for instance, suppose I don't only want to do this.

80
00:10:22,470 --> 00:10:27,230
I don't want to say who to be everybody's job description.

81
00:10:27,230 --> 00:10:48,800
Suppose I want to say AND the job of x is d dot y and the supervisor of x is z.

82
00:10:48,800 --> 00:11:08,700
Now, supervisor of x is z is going to be another primitive query that has the same shape to take in a stream of data objects, a stream of initial dictionaries, which are the restrictions to try and use when you match, and it's going to put out a stream of dictionaries.

83
00:11:08,700 --> 00:11:11,680
So that's what this primitive query looks like.

84
00:11:11,680 --> 00:11:12,910
And how do I implement the AND?

85
00:11:12,910 --> 00:11:13,450
Well, it's simple.

86
00:11:13,450 --> 00:11:14,880
I just hook them together.

87
00:11:14,880 --> 00:11:19,830
I take the output of this one, and I put that to the input of that one.

88
00:11:19,830 --> 00:11:21,545
And I take the dictionary here and I fan it out.

89
00:11:26,570 --> 00:11:37,920
And then you see how that's going to work, because what's going to happen is a frame will now come in here, which has a binding for x, y, and d.

90
00:11:37,920 --> 00:11:56,080
And then when this one gets it, it'll say, oh, gee, subject to these restrictions, which now already have values in the dictionary for y and x and d, it looks in the database and says, gee, can I find any supervisor facts?

91
00:11:56,080 --> 00:12:09,340
And if it finds any, out will come dictionaries which have bindings for y and x and d and z now.

92
00:12:12,070 --> 00:12:26,470
And then notice that because the frames coming in here have these restrictions, that's the thing that assures that when you do the AND, this x will mean the same thing as that x.

93
00:12:26,470 --> 00:12:34,460
Because by the time something comes floating in here, x has a value that you have to match against consistently.

94
00:12:34,460 --> 00:12:40,710
And then you remember from the code from the matcher, there was something in the way the matcher did dictionaries that arrange consistent matches.

95
00:12:40,710 --> 00:12:44,260
So there's AND.

96
00:12:44,260 --> 00:12:48,570
The important point to notice is the general shape.

97
00:12:48,570 --> 00:12:52,600
Look at what happened: the AND of two queries, say, P and Q.

98
00:12:52,600 --> 00:13:01,190
Here's P and Q. The AND of two queries, well, it looks like this.

99
00:13:01,190 --> 00:13:10,230
Each query takes in a stream from the database, a stream of inputs, and puts out a stream of outputs.

100
00:13:10,230 --> 00:13:32,360
And the important point to notice is that if I draw a box around this thing and say this is AND of P and Q, then that box has exactly the same overall shape.

101
00:13:32,360 --> 00:13:34,200
It's something that takes in a stream from the database.

102
00:13:34,200 --> 00:13:38,160
Here it's going to get fanned out inside, but from the outside you don't see that.

103
00:13:38,160 --> 00:13:42,230
It takes an input stream and puts out an output stream.

104
00:13:42,230 --> 00:13:43,570
So this is AND.

105
00:13:43,570 --> 00:13:46,020
And then similarly, OR would look like this.

106
00:13:46,020 --> 00:13:49,840
OR would-- although I didn't show you examples of OR.

107
00:13:49,840 --> 00:13:58,070
OR would say can I find all ways of matching P or Q. So I have P and Q. Each will have their shape.

108
00:14:04,460 --> 00:14:12,500
And the way OR is implemented is I'll take my database stream.

109
00:14:12,500 --> 00:14:13,490
I'll fan it out.

110
00:14:13,490 --> 00:14:21,980
I'll put one into P and one into Q. I'll take my initial query stream coming in and fan it out.

111
00:14:26,750 --> 00:14:41,080
So I'll look at all the answers I might get from P and all the answers I might get from Q, and I'll put them through some sort of thing that appends them or merges the result into one stream, and that's what will come out.

112
00:14:41,080 --> 00:14:48,240
And this whole thing from the outside is OR.

113
00:14:52,350 --> 00:14:56,790
And again, you see it has the same overall shape when looked at from the outside.

114
00:15:01,000 --> 00:15:02,020
What's NOT?

115
00:15:02,020 --> 00:15:04,310
NOT works kind of the same way.

116
00:15:04,310 --> 00:15:14,690
If I have some query P, I take the primitive query for P.

117
00:15:14,690 --> 00:15:20,720
Here, I'm going to implement NOT P. And NOT's just going to act as a filter.

118
00:15:20,720 --> 00:15:39,020
I'll take in the database and my original stream of dictionaries coming in, and what NOT P will do is it will filter these guys.

119
00:15:39,020 --> 00:15:47,460
And the way it will filter it, it will say when I get in a dictionary here, I'll find all the matches, and if I find any, I'll throw it away.

120
00:15:47,460 --> 00:15:55,560
And if I don't find any matches to something coming in here, I'll just pass that through, so NOT is a pure filter.

121
00:15:55,560 --> 00:15:59,980
So AND is-- think of these sort of electoral resistors or something.

122
00:15:59,980 --> 00:16:04,960
AND is series combination and OR is parallel combination.

123
00:16:04,960 --> 00:16:07,460
And then NOT is not going to extend any dictionaries at all.

124
00:16:07,460 --> 00:16:08,750
It's just going to filter it.

125
00:16:08,750 --> 00:16:12,640
It's going to throw away the ones for which it finds a way to match.

126
00:16:12,640 --> 00:16:14,540
And list value is sort of the same way.

127
00:16:14,540 --> 00:16:16,600
The filter's a little more complicated.

128
00:16:16,600 --> 00:16:19,640
It applies to predicate.

129
00:16:19,640 --> 00:16:24,980
The major point to notice here, and it's a major point we've looked at before, is this idea of closure.

130
00:16:28,490 --> 00:16:39,750
The things that we build as a means of combination have the same overall structure as the primitive things that we're combining.

131
00:16:39,750 --> 00:16:44,630
So the AND of two things when looked at from the outside has the same shape.

132
00:16:44,630 --> 00:16:54,950
And what that means is that this box here could be an AND or an OR or a NOT or something because it has the same shape to interface to the larger things.

133
00:16:54,950 --> 00:17:04,170
It's the same thing that allowed us to get complexity in the Escher picture language or allows you to immediately build up these complicated structures just out of pairs.

134
00:17:04,170 --> 00:17:06,280
It's closure.

135
00:17:06,280 --> 00:17:19,260
And that's the thing that allowed me to do what by now you took for granted when I said, gee, there's a query which is AND of job and salary, and I said, oh, there's another one, which is AND of job, a NOT of something.

136
00:17:19,260 --> 00:17:25,230
The fact that I can do that is a direct consequence of this closure principle.

137
00:17:25,230 --> 00:17:29,520
OK, let's break and then we'll go on.

138
00:17:29,520 --> 00:17:30,710
AUDIENCE: Where does the dictionary come from?

139
00:17:30,710 --> 00:17:36,030
PROFESSOR: The dictionary comes initially from what you type in.

140
00:17:36,030 --> 00:17:41,090
So when you start this up, the first thing it does is set up this whole structure.

141
00:17:41,090 --> 00:17:45,000
It puts in one empty dictionary.

142
00:17:45,000 --> 00:17:52,310
And if all you have is one primitive query, then what will come out is a bunch of dictionaries with things filled in.

143
00:17:52,310 --> 00:17:59,710
The general situation that I have here is when this is in the middle of some nest of combined things.

144
00:18:02,380 --> 00:18:03,790
Let's look at the picture over here.

145
00:18:03,790 --> 00:18:06,730
This supervisor query gets in some dictionary.

146
00:18:06,730 --> 00:18:08,730
Where did this one come from?

147
00:18:08,730 --> 00:18:16,260
This dictionary came from the fact that I'm looking at the output of this primitive query.

148
00:18:16,260 --> 00:18:31,770
So maybe to be very specific, if I literally typed in just this query at the top level, this AND, what would actually happen is it would build this structure and start up this whole thing with one empty dictionary.

149
00:18:31,770 --> 00:18:38,640
And now this one would process, and a whole bunch of dictionaries would come out with x, y's and d's in them.

150
00:18:38,640 --> 00:18:40,190
Run it through this one.

151
00:18:40,190 --> 00:18:42,160
So now that's the input to this one.

152
00:18:42,160 --> 00:18:45,040
This one would now put out some other stuff.

153
00:18:45,040 --> 00:18:56,110
And if this itself were buried in some larger thing, like an OR of something, then that would go feed into the next one.

154
00:18:58,560 --> 00:19:07,660
So you initially get only one empty dictionary when you start it, but as you're in the middle of processing these compounds things, that's where these cascades of dictionaries start getting generated.

155
00:19:07,660 --> 00:19:12,280
AUDIENCE: Dictionaries only come about as a result of using the queries?

156
00:19:15,120 --> 00:19:23,220
Or do they become-- do they stay someplace in space like the database does?

157
00:19:23,220 --> 00:19:24,980
Are these temporary items?

158
00:19:24,980 --> 00:19:28,030
PROFESSOR: They're created temporarily in the matcher.

159
00:19:28,030 --> 00:19:29,880
Really, they're someplace in storage.

160
00:19:29,880 --> 00:19:40,950
Initially, someone creates a thing called the empty dictionary that gets initially fed to this match procedure, and then the match procedure builds some dictionaries, and they get passed on and on.

161
00:19:40,950 --> 00:19:43,526
AUDIENCE: OK, so they'll go way after the match?

162
00:19:43,526 --> 00:19:45,930
PROFESSOR: They'll go away when no one needs them again, yeah.

163
00:19:51,900 --> 00:19:56,050
AUDIENCE: It appears that the AND performs some redundant searches of the database.

164
00:19:56,050 --> 00:20:06,700
If the first clause matched, let's say, the third element and not on the first two elements, the second clause is going to look at those first two elements again, discarding them because they don't match.

165
00:20:06,700 --> 00:20:10,000
The match is already in the dictionary.

166
00:20:10,000 --> 00:20:14,450
Would it makes sense to carry the data element from the database along with the dictionary?

167
00:20:17,120 --> 00:20:21,740
PROFESSOR: Well, in general, there are other ways to arrange this search, and there's some analysis that you can do.

168
00:20:21,740 --> 00:20:29,850
I think there's a problem in the book, which talks about a different way that you can cascade AND to eliminate various kinds of redundancies.

169
00:20:29,850 --> 00:20:34,650
This one is meant to be-- was mainly meant to be very simple so you can see how they fit together.

170
00:20:34,650 --> 00:20:35,380
But you're quite right.

171
00:20:35,380 --> 00:20:38,370
There are redundancies here that you can get rid of.

172
00:20:38,370 --> 00:20:41,190
That's another reason why this language is somewhat slow.

173
00:20:41,190 --> 00:20:42,930
There are a lot smarter things you can do.

174
00:20:42,930 --> 00:20:46,840
We're just trying to show you a very simple, in principle, implementation.

175
00:20:51,220 --> 00:20:55,150
AUDIENCE: Did you model this language on Prolog, or did it just come out looking like Prolog?

176
00:21:04,960 --> 00:21:16,120
PROFESSOR: Well, Jerry insulted a whole bunch of people yesterday, so I might as well say that the MIT attitude towards Prolog is something that people did in about 1971 and decided that it wasn't really the right thing and stopped.

177
00:21:16,120 --> 00:21:37,330
So we modeled this on the sort of natural way that this thing was done in about 1971, except at that point, we didn't do it with streams. After we were using it for about six months, we discovered that it had all these problems, some of which I'll talk about later.

178
00:21:37,330 --> 00:21:41,250
And we said, gee, Prolog must have fixed those, and then we found out that it didn't.

179
00:21:41,250 --> 00:21:43,460
So this does about the same thing as Prolog.

180
00:21:43,460 --> 00:21:44,950
AUDIENCE: Does Prolog use streams?

181
00:21:44,950 --> 00:21:46,200
PROFESSOR: No.

182
00:21:48,540 --> 00:21:51,040
In how it behaves, it behaves a lot like Prolog.

183
00:21:51,040 --> 00:21:53,800
Prolog uses a backtracking strategy.

184
00:21:53,800 --> 00:22:20,850
But the other thing that's really good about Prolog that makes it a usable thing is that there's a really very, very well-engineered compiler technology that makes it run fast. So although you saw the merge spitting out these answers very, very slowly, a real Prolog will run very, very fast. Because even though it's sort of doing this, the real work that went into Prolog is a very, very excellent compiler effort.

185
00:22:24,460 --> 00:22:25,710
Let's take a break.

186
00:23:16,650 --> 00:23:26,950
We've looked at the primitive queries and the ways that streams are used to implement the means of combination: AND and OR and NOT.

187
00:23:26,950 --> 00:23:29,580
Now, let go on to the means of abstraction.

188
00:23:29,580 --> 00:23:32,570
Remember, the means of abstraction in this language are rules.

189
00:23:35,150 --> 00:23:48,900
So z is a boss in division d if there's some x who has a job in division d and z is the supervisor of x.

190
00:23:48,900 --> 00:23:52,260
That's what it means for someone to be a boss.

191
00:23:52,260 --> 00:24:33,900
And in effect, if you think about what we're doing with relation to this, there's the query we wrote-- the job of x is in d and the supervisor of x is z-- what we in effect want to do is take this whole mess and draw a box around it and say this whole thing inside the box is boss of z in division d.

192
00:24:33,900 --> 00:24:35,250
That's in effect what we want to do.

193
00:24:38,720 --> 00:25:33,045
So, for instance, if we've done that, and we want to check whether or not it's true that Ben Bitdiddle is a boss in the computer division, so if I want to say boss of Ben Bitdiddle in the computer division, imagine typing that in as query to the system, in effect what we want to do is set up a dictionary here, which has z to Ben Bitdiddle and d to computer.

194
00:25:37,340 --> 00:25:38,720
Where did that dictionary come from?

195
00:25:38,720 --> 00:25:40,710
Let's look at the slide for one second.

196
00:25:40,710 --> 00:25:51,650
That dictionary came from matching the query that said boss of Ben Bitdiddle and computer onto the conclusion of the rule: boss of z and d.

197
00:25:51,650 --> 00:25:54,190
So we match the query to the conclusion of the rule.

198
00:25:54,190 --> 00:26:06,670
That gives us a dictionary, and that's the thing that we would now like to put into this whole big thing and process and see if anything comes out the other side.

199
00:26:06,670 --> 00:26:11,330
If anything comes out, it'll be true.

200
00:26:11,330 --> 00:26:12,370
That's the basic idea.

201
00:26:12,370 --> 00:26:23,580
So in general, the way we implement a rule is we match the conclusion of the rule against something we might want to check it's true.

202
00:26:23,580 --> 00:26:36,470
That match gives us a dictionary, and with respect to that dictionary, we process the body of the rule.

203
00:26:36,470 --> 00:26:43,070
Well, that's really all there is, except for two technical points.

204
00:26:43,070 --> 00:26:47,510
The first technical point is that I might have said something else.

205
00:26:47,510 --> 00:26:52,490
I might have said who's the boss in the computer division?

206
00:26:52,490 --> 00:26:56,270
So I might say boss of who in computer division.

207
00:27:00,329 --> 00:27:18,620
And if I did that, what I would really like to do in effect is start up this dictionary with a match that sort of says, well, d is computer and z is whatever who is.

208
00:27:21,700 --> 00:27:23,220
And our matcher won't quite do that.

209
00:27:23,220 --> 00:27:28,580
That's not quite matching a pattern against data.

210
00:27:28,580 --> 00:27:33,480
It's matching two patterns and saying are they consistent or not or what ways make them consistent.

211
00:27:33,480 --> 00:27:39,740
In other words, what we need is not quite a pattern matcher, but something a little bit more general called a unifier.

212
00:27:44,420 --> 00:27:49,530
And a unifier is a slight generalization of a pattern matcher.

213
00:27:49,530 --> 00:28:05,680
What a unifier does is take two patterns and say what's the most general thing you can substitute for the variables in those two patterns to make them satisfy the pattern simultaneously?

214
00:28:05,680 --> 00:28:08,900
Let me give you an example.

215
00:28:08,900 --> 00:28:43,440
If I have the pattern two-element list, which is x and x, so I have a two-element list where both elements are the same and otherwise I don't care what they are, and I unify that against the pattern that says there's a two-element list, and the first one is a and something in c and the second one is a and b and z, then what the unifier should tell me is, oh yeah, in that dictionary, x has to be a, b, c, and y has to be d and z has to be c.

216
00:28:43,440 --> 00:28:55,420
Those are the restrictions I'd have to put on the values of x, y, and z to make these two unify, or in other words, to make this match x and make this match x.

217
00:28:55,420 --> 00:28:58,540
The unifier should be able to deduce that.

218
00:28:58,540 --> 00:29:01,080
But the unifier may-- there are more complicated things.

219
00:29:01,080 --> 00:29:03,810
I might have said something a little bit more complicated.

220
00:29:03,810 --> 00:29:12,650
I might have said there's a list with two elements, and they're both the same, and they should unify against something of this form.

221
00:29:12,650 --> 00:29:16,890
And the unifier should be able to deduce from that.

222
00:29:16,890 --> 00:29:19,570
Like that y would have to be b. y would have to be b.

223
00:29:19,570 --> 00:29:24,340
Because these two are the same, so y's got to be b.

224
00:29:24,340 --> 00:29:28,940
And v here would have to be a.

225
00:29:28,940 --> 00:29:32,700
And z and w can be anything, but they have to be the same thing.

226
00:29:35,710 --> 00:29:44,680
And x would have to be b, followed by a, followed by whatever w is or whatever z is, which is the same.

227
00:29:44,680 --> 00:29:50,880
So you see, the unifier somehow has to deduce things to unify these patterns.

228
00:29:50,880 --> 00:29:55,850
So you might think there's some kind of magic deduction going on, but there's not.

229
00:29:55,850 --> 00:30:00,150
A unifier is basically a very simple modification of a pattern matcher.

230
00:30:00,150 --> 00:30:08,280
And if you look in the book, you'll see something like three or four lines of code added to the pattern matcher you just saw to handle the symmetric case.

231
00:30:08,280 --> 00:30:14,980
Remember, the pattern matcher has a place where it says is this variable matching a constant.

232
00:30:14,980 --> 00:30:16,420
And if so, it checks in the dictionary.

233
00:30:16,420 --> 00:30:27,030
There's only one other clause in the unifier, which says is this variable matching a variable, in which case you go look in the dictionary and see if that's consistent with what's in the dictionary.

234
00:30:27,030 --> 00:30:45,260
So all the, quote, deduction that's in this language, if you sort of look at it, sort of sits in the rule applications, which, if you look at that, sits in the unifier, which, if you look at that under a microscope, sits essentially in the pattern matcher.

235
00:30:45,260 --> 00:30:47,410
There's no magic at all going on in there.

236
00:30:47,410 --> 00:30:56,030
And the, quote, deduction that you see is just the fact that there's this recursion, which is unwinding the matches bit by bit.

237
00:30:56,030 --> 00:31:02,140
So it looks like this thing is being very clever, but in fact, it's not being very clever at all.

238
00:31:02,140 --> 00:31:04,880
There are cases where a unifier might have to be clever.

239
00:31:04,880 --> 00:31:06,130
Let me show you one more.

240
00:31:11,070 --> 00:31:24,370
Suppose I want to unify a list of two elements, x and x, with a thing that says it's y followed by a dot y.

241
00:31:24,370 --> 00:31:37,330
Now, if you think of what that would have to mean, it would have to mean that x had better be the same as y, but also x had better be the same as a list whose first element is a and whose rest is y.

242
00:31:37,330 --> 00:31:44,710
And if you think about what that would have to mean, it would have to mean that y is the infinite list of a's.

243
00:31:47,500 --> 00:32:01,840
In some sense, in order to do that unification, I have to solve the fixed-point equation cons of a to y is equal to y.

244
00:32:04,570 --> 00:32:07,290
And in general, I wrote a very simple one.

245
00:32:07,290 --> 00:32:15,530
Really doing unification might have to solve an arbitrary fixed-point equation: f of y equals y.

246
00:32:15,530 --> 00:32:20,570
And basically, you can't do that and make the thing finite all the time.

247
00:32:20,570 --> 00:32:25,140
So how does the logic language handle that?

248
00:32:25,140 --> 00:32:26,850
The answer is it doesn't.

249
00:32:26,850 --> 00:32:28,730
It just punts.

250
00:32:28,730 --> 00:32:38,650
And there's a little check in the unifier, which says, oh, is this one of the hard cases which when I go to match things would involve solving a fixed-point equation?

251
00:32:38,650 --> 00:32:42,840
And in this case, I will throw up my hands.

252
00:32:42,840 --> 00:32:47,990
And if that check were not in there, what would happen?

253
00:32:47,990 --> 00:32:53,740
In most cases is that the unifier would just go into an infinite loop.

254
00:32:53,740 --> 00:32:56,800
And other logic programming languages work like that.

255
00:32:56,800 --> 00:32:58,220
So there's really no magic.

256
00:32:58,220 --> 00:33:00,100
The easy case is done in a matcher.

257
00:33:00,100 --> 00:33:02,960
The hard case is not done at all.

258
00:33:02,960 --> 00:33:05,115
And that's about the state of this technology.

259
00:33:12,840 --> 00:33:17,390
Let me just say again formally how rules work now that I talked about unifiers.

260
00:33:17,390 --> 00:33:28,270
So the official definition is that to apply a rule, we-- well, let's start using some words we've used before.

261
00:33:28,270 --> 00:33:43,850
Let's talk about sticking dictionaries into these big boxes of query things as evaluating these large queries relative to an environment or a frame.

262
00:33:43,850 --> 00:33:46,720
So when you think of that dictionary, what's the dictionary after all?

263
00:33:46,720 --> 00:33:48,180
It's a bunch of meanings for symbols.

264
00:33:48,180 --> 00:33:51,800
That's what we've been calling frames or environments.

265
00:33:51,800 --> 00:33:55,970
What does it mean to do some processing relevant to an environment?

266
00:33:55,970 --> 00:33:58,310
That's what we've been calling evaluation.

267
00:33:58,310 --> 00:34:13,230
So we can say the way that you apply a rule is to evaluate the rule body relative to an environment that's formed by unifying the rule conclusion with the given query.

268
00:34:13,230 --> 00:34:21,630
And the thing I want you to notice is the complete formal similarity to the net of circular evaluator or the substitution model.

269
00:34:21,630 --> 00:34:34,560
To apply a procedure, we evaluate the procedure body relative to an environment that's formed by blinding the procedure parameters to the arguments.

270
00:34:34,560 --> 00:34:43,650
There's a complete formal similarity here between the rules, rule application, and procedure application even though these things are very, very different.

271
00:34:43,650 --> 00:34:47,290
And again, you have the EVAL APPLY loop.

272
00:34:47,290 --> 00:34:49,445
EVAL and APPLY.

273
00:34:53,360 --> 00:35:08,660
So in general, I might be processing some combined expression that will turn into a rule application, which will generate some dictionaries or frames or environments-- whatever you want to call them-- from match, which will then be the input to some big compound thing like this.

274
00:35:08,660 --> 00:35:13,580
This has pieces of it and may have other rule applications.

275
00:35:13,580 --> 00:35:19,680
And you have essentially the same cycle even though there's nothing here at all that looks like procedures.

276
00:35:19,680 --> 00:35:25,490
It really has to do with the fact you've built a language whose means of combination and abstraction unwind in certain ways.

277
00:35:28,770 --> 00:35:40,460
And then in general, what happens at the very top level, you might have rules in your database also, so things in this database might be rules.

278
00:35:40,460 --> 00:35:42,920
There are ways to check that things are true.

279
00:35:42,920 --> 00:35:46,750
So it might come in here and have to do a rule check.

280
00:35:46,750 --> 00:35:53,350
And then there's some control structure which says, well, you look at some rules, and you look at some data elements, and you look at some rules and data elements, and these fan out and out and out.

281
00:35:53,350 --> 00:36:00,245
So it becomes essentially impossible to say what order it's looking at these things in, whether it's breadth first or depth first or anything.

282
00:36:00,245 --> 00:36:11,270
And it's even more impossible because the actual order is somehow buried in the delays of the streams. So what's very hard to tell from this is the order in which it's scanned.

283
00:36:11,270 --> 00:36:15,820
But what's true, because you're looking at the stream view, is that all of them eventually get looked at.

284
00:36:24,980 --> 00:36:28,150
Let me just mention one tiny technical problem.

285
00:36:37,530 --> 00:36:45,780
Suppose I tried saying boss of y is computer, then a funny thing would happen.

286
00:36:45,780 --> 00:37:01,580
As I stuck a dictionary with y in here, I might get-- this y is not the same as that y, which was the other piece of somebody's job description.

287
00:37:01,580 --> 00:37:10,930
So if I really only did literally what I said, we'd get some variable conflict problems. So I lied to you a little bit.

288
00:37:10,930 --> 00:37:14,360
Notice that problem is exactly a problem we've run into before.

289
00:37:14,360 --> 00:37:20,505
It is precisely the need for local variables in a language.

290
00:37:20,505 --> 00:37:24,960
When I have the sum of squares, that x had better not be that x.

291
00:37:24,960 --> 00:37:31,800
That's exactly the same as this y had better not be that y.

292
00:37:31,800 --> 00:37:33,100
And we know how to solve that.

293
00:37:33,100 --> 00:37:37,710
That was this whole environment model, and we built chains of frames and all sorts of things like that.

294
00:37:37,710 --> 00:37:39,270
There's a much more brutal way to solve it.

295
00:37:39,270 --> 00:37:41,730
In the query language, we didn't even do that.

296
00:37:41,730 --> 00:37:43,540
We did something completely brutal.

297
00:37:43,540 --> 00:37:55,720
We said every time you apply a rule, rename consistently all the variables in the rule to some new unique names that won't conflict with anything.

298
00:37:55,720 --> 00:37:59,970
That's conceptually simpler, but really brutal and not particularly efficient.

299
00:37:59,970 --> 00:38:09,180
But notice, we could have gotten rid of all of our environment structures if we defined for procedures in Lisp the same thing.

300
00:38:09,180 --> 00:38:19,040
If every time we applied a procedure and did the substitution model we renamed all the variables in the procedure, then we never would have had to worry about local variables because they would never arise.

301
00:38:19,040 --> 00:38:25,610
OK, well, that would be inefficient, and it's inefficient here in the query language, too, but we did it to keep it simple.

302
00:38:25,610 --> 00:38:26,860
Let's break for questions.

303
00:38:30,880 --> 00:38:41,170
AUDIENCE: When you started this section, you emphasized how powerful our APPLY EVAL model was that we could use it for any language.

304
00:38:41,170 --> 00:38:43,950
And then you say we're going to have this language which is so different.

305
00:38:43,950 --> 00:38:47,880
It turns out that this language, as you just pointed out, is very much the same.

306
00:38:47,880 --> 00:38:57,030
I'm wondering if you're arguing that all languages end up coming down to this you can apply a rule or apply a procedure or some kind of apply?

307
00:38:57,030 --> 00:39:14,880
PROFESSOR: I would say that pretty much any language where you really are building up these means of combination and giving them simpler names and you're saying anything of the sort, like here's a general kind of expression, like how to square something, almost anything that you would call a procedure.

308
00:39:14,880 --> 00:39:18,020
If that's got to have parts, you have to unwind those parts.

309
00:39:18,020 --> 00:39:31,720
You have to have some kind of organization which says when I look at the abstract variables or tags or whatever you want to call them that might stand for particular things, you have to keep track of that, and that's going to be something like an environment.

310
00:39:31,720 --> 00:39:37,440
And then if you say this part can have parts which I have to unwind, you've got to have something like this cycle.

311
00:39:39,970 --> 00:39:45,590
And lots and lots of languages have that character when they sort of get put together in this way.

312
00:39:45,590 --> 00:39:50,690
This language again really is different because there's nothing like procedures on the outside.

313
00:39:50,690 --> 00:39:54,870
When you go below the surface and you see the implementation, of course, it starts looking the same.

314
00:39:54,870 --> 00:39:56,950
But from the outside, it's a very different world view.

315
00:39:56,950 --> 00:39:58,650
You're not computing functions of inputs.

316
00:40:03,970 --> 00:40:15,495
AUDIENCE: You mentioned earlier that when you build all of these rules in pattern matcher and with the delayed action of streams, you really have no way to know in what order things are evaluated.

317
00:40:15,495 --> 00:40:15,940
PROFESSOR: Right.

318
00:40:15,940 --> 00:40:23,950
AUDIENCE: And that would indicate then that you should only express declarative knowledge that's true for all-time, no-time sequence built into it.

319
00:40:23,950 --> 00:40:28,490
Otherwise, these things get all-- PROFESSOR: Yes.

320
00:40:28,490 --> 00:40:28,820
Yes.

321
00:40:28,820 --> 00:40:40,830
The question is this really is set up for doing declarative knowledge, and as I presented it-- and I'll show you some of the ugly warts under this after the break.

322
00:40:40,830 --> 00:40:43,070
As I presented it, it's just doing logic.

323
00:40:43,070 --> 00:40:48,840
And in principle, if it were logic, it wouldn't matter what order it's getting done.

324
00:40:48,840 --> 00:41:01,290
And it's quite true when you start doing things where you have side effects like adding things to the database and taking things out, and we'll see some others, you use that kind of control.

325
00:41:01,290 --> 00:41:02,940
So, for example, contrasting with Prolog.

326
00:41:02,940 --> 00:41:09,640
Say Prolog has various features where you really exploit the order of evaluation.

327
00:41:09,640 --> 00:41:11,770
And people write Prolog programs that way.

328
00:41:11,770 --> 00:41:18,590
That turns out to be very complicated in Prolog, although if you're an expert Prolog programmer, you can do it.

329
00:41:18,590 --> 00:41:20,210
However, here I don't think you can do it at all.

330
00:41:20,210 --> 00:41:27,150
It's very complicated because you really are giving up control over any prearranged order of trying things.

331
00:41:27,150 --> 00:41:30,670
AUDIENCE: Now, that would indicate then that you have a functional mapping.

332
00:41:30,670 --> 00:41:38,810
And when you started out this lecture, you said that we express the declarative knowledge which is a relation, and we don't talk about the inputs and the outputs.

333
00:41:41,390 --> 00:41:43,370
PROFESSOR: Well, there's a pun on functional, right?

334
00:41:43,370 --> 00:41:48,700
There's function in the sense of no side effects and not depending on what order is going on.

335
00:41:48,700 --> 00:41:52,220
And then there's functional in the sense of mathematical function, which means input and output.

336
00:41:52,220 --> 00:41:56,510
And it's just that pun that you're making, I think.

337
00:41:56,510 --> 00:42:01,270
AUDIENCE: I'm a little unclear on what you're doing with these two statements, the two boss statements.

338
00:42:01,270 --> 00:42:12,440
Is the first one building up the database and the second one a query or-- PROFESSOR: OK, I'm sorry.

339
00:42:12,440 --> 00:42:19,470
What I meant here, if I type something like this in as a query-- I should have given an example way at the very beginning.

340
00:42:19,470 --> 00:42:34,220
If I type in job, Ben Bitdiddle, computer wizard, what the processing will do is if it finds a match, it'll find a match to that exact thing, and it'll type out a job, Ben Bitdiddle, computer wizard.

341
00:42:34,220 --> 00:42:37,400
If it doesn't find a match, it won't find anything.

342
00:42:37,400 --> 00:42:50,680
So what I should have said is the way you use the query language to check whether something is true, remember, that's one of the things you want to do in logic programming, is you type in your query and either that comes out or it doesn't.

343
00:42:50,680 --> 00:42:57,480
So what I was trying to illustrate here, I wanted to start with a very simple example before talking about unifiers.

344
00:42:57,480 --> 00:43:07,830
So what I should have said, if I just wanted to check whether this is true, I could type that in and see if anything came out AUDIENCE: And then the second one-- PROFESSOR: The second one would be a real query.

345
00:43:07,830 --> 00:43:10,770
AUDIENCE: A real query, yeah.

346
00:43:10,770 --> 00:43:19,560
PROFESSOR: What would come out, see, it would go in here say with FOO, and in would go frame that says z is bound to who and d is bound to computer.

347
00:43:19,560 --> 00:43:23,250
And this will pass through, and then by the time it got out of here, who would pick up a binding.

348
00:43:26,950 --> 00:43:36,460
AUDIENCE: On the unifying thing there, I still am not sure what happens with who and z.

349
00:43:36,460 --> 00:43:46,260
If the unifying-- the rule here says--  OK, so you say that you can't make question mark equal to question mark who.

350
00:43:46,260 --> 00:43:46,410
PROFESSOR: Right.

351
00:43:46,410 --> 00:43:48,360
That's what the matcher can't do.

352
00:43:48,360 --> 00:43:53,800
But what this will mean to a unifier is that there's an environment with three variables.

353
00:43:56,690 --> 00:43:58,520
d here is computer.

354
00:43:58,520 --> 00:44:01,830
z is whatever who is.

355
00:44:01,830 --> 00:44:18,360
So if later on in the matcher routine it said, for example, who has to be 3, then when I looked up in the dictionary, it will say, oh, z is 3 because it's the same as who.

356
00:44:18,360 --> 00:44:22,640
And that's in some sense the only thing you need to do to extend the unifier to a matcher.

357
00:44:22,640 --> 00:44:29,770
AUDIENCE: OK, because it looked like when you were telling how to unify it, it looked like you would put the things together in such a way that you'd actually solve and have a value for both of them.

358
00:44:29,770 --> 00:44:34,860
And what it looks like now is that you're actually pass a dictionary with two variables and the variables are linked.

359
00:44:34,860 --> 00:44:35,130
PROFESSOR: Right.

360
00:44:35,130 --> 00:44:40,540
It only looks like you're solving for both of them because you're sort of looking at the whole solution at once.

361
00:44:40,540 --> 00:44:44,980
If you sort of watch the thing getting built up recursively, it's merely this.

362
00:44:44,980 --> 00:44:48,400
AUDIENCE: OK, so you do pass off that dictionary with two variables?

363
00:44:48,400 --> 00:44:49,110
PROFESSOR: That's right.

364
00:44:49,110 --> 00:44:50,190
AUDIENCE: And link?

365
00:44:50,190 --> 00:44:50,560
PROFESSOR: Right.

366
00:44:50,560 --> 00:44:54,055
It just looks like an ordinary dictionary.

367
00:44:54,055 --> 00:45:04,725
AUDIENCE: When you're talking about the unifier, is it that there are some cases or some points that you are not able to use by them?

368
00:45:04,725 --> 00:45:05,220
PROFESSOR: Right.

369
00:45:05,220 --> 00:45:18,540
AUDIENCE: Can you just by building the rules or writing the forms know in advance if you are going to be able to solve to get the unification or not?

370
00:45:18,540 --> 00:45:30,090
Can you add some properties either to the rules itself or to the formula that you're writing so that you avoid the problem of not finding unification?

371
00:45:30,090 --> 00:45:35,390
PROFESSOR: I mean, you can agree, I think, to write in a fairly restricted way where you won't run into it.

372
00:45:35,390 --> 00:45:55,300
See, because what you're getting-- see, the place where you get into problems is when you-- well, again, you're trying to match things like that against things where these have structure, where a, y, b, y something.

373
00:45:58,980 --> 00:46:03,070
So this is the kind of place where you're going to get into trouble.

374
00:46:03,070 --> 00:46:06,370
AUDIENCE: So you can do that syntactically?

375
00:46:06,370 --> 00:46:11,561
PROFESSOR: So you can kind of watch your rules in the kinds of things that your writing.

376
00:46:11,561 --> 00:46:16,310
AUDIENCE: So that's the problem that the builder of the database has to be concerned?

377
00:46:16,310 --> 00:46:17,560
PROFESSOR: That's a problem.

378
00:46:19,930 --> 00:46:25,800
It's a problem either-- not quite the builder of the database, the person who is expressing the rules, or the builder of the database.

379
00:46:25,800 --> 00:46:34,940
What the unifier actually does is you can check at the next level down when you actually get to the unifier and you'll see in the code where it looks up in the dictionary.

380
00:46:34,940 --> 00:46:37,260
If it sort of says what does y have to be?

381
00:46:37,260 --> 00:46:41,960
Oh, does y have to be something that contains a y as its expression?

382
00:46:41,960 --> 00:46:46,240
At that point, the unifier and say, oh my God, I'm trying to solve a fixed-point equation.

383
00:46:46,240 --> 00:46:49,220
I'll give it up here.

384
00:46:49,220 --> 00:46:51,910
AUDIENCE: You make the distinction between the rules in the database.

385
00:46:51,910 --> 00:46:56,950
Are the rules added to the database?

386
00:46:56,950 --> 00:46:57,870
PROFESSOR: Yes.

387
00:46:57,870 --> 00:46:58,870
Yes, I should have said that.

388
00:46:58,870 --> 00:47:03,890
One way to think about rules is that they're just other things in the database.

389
00:47:03,890 --> 00:47:09,445
So if you want to check the things that have to be checked in the database, they're kind of virtual facts that are in the database.

390
00:47:09,445 --> 00:47:18,230
AUDIENCE: But in that explanation, you made the differentiation between database and the rules itself.

391
00:47:18,230 --> 00:47:20,490
PROFESSOR: Yeah, I probably should not have done that.

392
00:47:20,490 --> 00:47:23,540
The only reason to do that is in terms of the implementation.

393
00:47:23,540 --> 00:47:30,470
When you look at the implementation, there's a part which says check either primitive assertions in the database or check rules.

394
00:47:30,470 --> 00:47:44,600
And then the real reason why you can't tell what order things are going to come out in and is that the rules database and the data database sort of get merged in a kind of delayed evaluation way.

395
00:47:44,600 --> 00:47:46,320
And so that's what makes the order very complicated.

396
00:47:55,440 --> 00:47:56,690
OK, let's break.

397
00:48:33,160 --> 00:48:37,230
We've just seen how the logic language works and how rules work.

398
00:48:37,230 --> 00:48:40,120
Now, let's turn to a more profound question.

399
00:48:40,120 --> 00:48:43,180
What do these things mean?

400
00:48:43,180 --> 00:48:53,570
That brings us to the subtlest, most devious part of this whole query language business, and that is that it's not quite what it seems to be.

401
00:48:53,570 --> 00:49:07,690
AND and OR and NOT and the logical implication of rules are not really the AND and OR and NOT and logical implication of logic.

402
00:49:07,690 --> 00:49:09,910
Let me give you an example of that.

403
00:49:09,910 --> 00:49:30,100
Certainly, if we have two things in logic, it ought to be the case that AND of P and Q is the same as AND of Q and P and that OR of P and Q is the same as OR of Q and P. But let's look here.

404
00:49:30,100 --> 00:49:32,180
Here's an example.

405
00:49:32,180 --> 00:49:40,140
Let's talk about somebody outranking somebody else in our little database organization.

406
00:49:40,140 --> 00:49:55,640
We'll say s is outranked by b or if either the supervisor of this is b or there's some middle manager here, that supervisor of s is m, and m is outranked by b.

407
00:49:59,830 --> 00:50:02,310
So there's one way to define rule outranked by.

408
00:50:02,310 --> 00:50:11,630
Or we can write exactly the same thing, except at the bottom here, we reversed the order of these two clauses.

409
00:50:11,630 --> 00:50:16,690
And certainly if this were logic, those ought to mean the same thing.

410
00:50:16,690 --> 00:50:34,110
However, in our particular implementation, if you say something like who's outranked by Ben Bitdiddle, what you'll find is that this rule will work perfectly well and generate answers, whereas this rule will go into an infinite loop.

411
00:50:34,110 --> 00:50:39,400
And the reason for that is that this will come in and say, oh, who's outranked by Ben Bitdiddle?

412
00:50:41,920 --> 00:50:50,330
Find an s which is outranked by b, where b is Ben Bitdiddle, which is going to happen in it a subproblem.

413
00:50:50,330 --> 00:50:58,560
Oh gee, find an m such as m is outranked by Ben Bitdiddle with no restrictions on m.

414
00:50:58,560 --> 00:51:04,570
So this will say in order to solve this problem, I solve exactly the same problem.

415
00:51:04,570 --> 00:51:08,000
And then after I've solved that, I'll check for a supervisory relationship.

416
00:51:08,000 --> 00:51:15,260
Whereas this one won't get into that, because before it tries to find this outranked by, it'll already have had a restriction on m here.

417
00:51:18,560 --> 00:51:22,860
So these two things which ought to mean the same, in fact, one goes into an infinite loop.

418
00:51:22,860 --> 00:51:26,720
One does not.

419
00:51:26,720 --> 00:51:42,240
That's a very extreme case of a general thing that you'll find in logic programming that if you start changing the order of the things in the ANDs or ORs, you'll find tremendous differences in efficiency.

420
00:51:42,240 --> 00:51:47,110
And we just saw an infinitely big difference in efficiency and an infinite loop.

421
00:51:49,190 --> 00:51:54,070
And there are similar things having to do with the order in which you enter rules.

422
00:51:54,070 --> 00:52:03,840
The order in which it happens to look at rules in the database may vastly change the efficiency with which it gets out answers or, in fact, send it into an infinite loop for some orderings.

423
00:52:03,840 --> 00:52:10,950
And this whole thing has to do with the fact that you're checking these rules in some order.

424
00:52:10,950 --> 00:52:15,180
And some rules may lead to really long paths of implication.

425
00:52:15,180 --> 00:52:16,440
Others might not.

426
00:52:16,440 --> 00:52:19,300
And you don't know a priori which ones are good and which ones are bad.

427
00:52:19,300 --> 00:52:26,970
And there's a whole bunch of research having to do with that, mostly having to do with thinking about making parallel implementations of logic programming languages.

428
00:52:26,970 --> 00:52:32,620
And in some sense, what you'd like to do is check all rules in parallel and whichever ones get answers, you bubble them up.

429
00:52:32,620 --> 00:52:40,550
And if some go down infinite deductive changed, well, you just-- you know, memory is cheap and processors are cheap, and you just let them buzz for as for as long as you want.

430
00:52:43,510 --> 00:52:50,870
There's a deeper problem, though, in comparing this logic language to real logic.

431
00:52:50,870 --> 00:52:58,370
The example I just showed you, it went into an infinite loop maybe, but at least it didn't give the wrong answer.

432
00:52:58,370 --> 00:53:09,490
There's an actual deeper problem when we start comparing, seriously comparing this logic language with real classical logic.

433
00:53:09,490 --> 00:53:14,030
So let's sort of review real classical logic.

434
00:53:14,030 --> 00:53:22,140
All humans are mortal.

435
00:53:22,140 --> 00:53:24,390
That's pretty classical logic.

436
00:53:24,390 --> 00:53:29,120
Then maybe we'll continue in the very best classical tradition.

437
00:53:29,120 --> 00:53:32,740
We'll say all-- let's make it really classical.

438
00:53:32,740 --> 00:53:48,060
All Greeks are human, which has the syllogism that Socrates is a Greek.

439
00:53:48,060 --> 00:53:49,210
And then what do you write here?

440
00:53:49,210 --> 00:53:51,890
I think three dots, classical logic.

441
00:53:51,890 --> 00:54:01,360
Therefore, then the syllogism, Socrates is mortal.

442
00:54:01,360 --> 00:54:05,880
So there's some real honest classical logic.

443
00:54:05,880 --> 00:54:12,570
Let's compare that with our classical logic database.

444
00:54:12,570 --> 00:54:16,270
So here's a classical logic database.

445
00:54:16,270 --> 00:54:18,030
Socrates is a Greek.

446
00:54:18,030 --> 00:54:19,600
Plato is a Greek.

447
00:54:19,600 --> 00:54:24,120
Zeus is a Greek, and Zeus is a god.

448
00:54:24,120 --> 00:54:30,780
And all humans are mortal.

449
00:54:30,780 --> 00:54:34,650
To show that something is mortal, it's enough to show that it's human.

450
00:54:34,650 --> 00:54:35,900
All humans are fallible.

451
00:54:38,900 --> 00:54:40,980
And all Greeks are humans is not quite right.

452
00:54:40,980 --> 00:54:45,920
This says that all Greeks who are not gods are human.

453
00:54:45,920 --> 00:54:49,320
So to show something's human, it's enough to show it's a Greek and not a god.

454
00:54:49,320 --> 00:54:54,470
And the address of any Greek god is Mount Olympus.

455
00:54:54,470 --> 00:54:57,390
So there's a little classical logic database.

456
00:54:57,390 --> 00:54:59,490
And indeed, that would work fairly well.

457
00:54:59,490 --> 00:55:06,910
If we type that in and say is Socrates mortal or Socrates fallible or mortal?

458
00:55:06,910 --> 00:55:07,690
It'll say yes.

459
00:55:07,690 --> 00:55:09,710
Is Plato mortal and fallible.

460
00:55:09,710 --> 00:55:10,680
It'll say yes.

461
00:55:10,680 --> 00:55:12,210
If we say is Zeus mortal?

462
00:55:12,210 --> 00:55:14,900
It won't find anything.

463
00:55:14,900 --> 00:55:16,640
And it'll work perfectly well.

464
00:55:16,640 --> 00:55:20,120
However, suppose we want to extend this.

465
00:55:20,120 --> 00:55:25,070
Let's define what it means for someone to be a perfect being.

466
00:55:25,070 --> 00:55:27,020
Let's say rule: a perfect being.

467
00:55:34,050 --> 00:55:35,480
And I think this is right.

468
00:55:35,480 --> 00:55:44,100
If you're up on your medieval scholastic philosophy, I believe that perfect beings are ones who were neither mortal nor fallible.

469
00:55:44,100 --> 00:55:59,300
AND NOT mortal x, NOT fallible x.

470
00:55:59,300 --> 00:56:05,790
So we'll define this system to teach it what a perfect being is.

471
00:56:05,790 --> 00:56:11,750
And now what we're going to do is he ask for the address of all the perfect beings.

472
00:56:11,750 --> 00:56:23,680
AND the address of x is y and x is perfect.

473
00:56:23,680 --> 00:56:33,830
And so what we're generating here is the world's most exclusive mailing list. For the address of all the perfect things, we might have typed this in.

474
00:56:33,830 --> 00:56:36,240
Or we might type in this.

475
00:56:36,240 --> 00:56:52,140
We'll say AND perfect of x and the address of x is y.

476
00:56:52,140 --> 00:56:55,190
Well, suppose we type all that in and we try this query.

477
00:56:55,190 --> 00:56:57,650
This query is going to give us an answer.

478
00:56:57,650 --> 00:56:59,745
This query will say, yeah, Mount Olympus.

479
00:57:04,230 --> 00:57:06,740
This query, in fact, is going to give us nothing.

480
00:57:06,740 --> 00:57:11,640
It will say no addresses of perfect beings.

481
00:57:11,640 --> 00:57:12,510
Now, why is that?

482
00:57:12,510 --> 00:57:14,230
Why is there a difference?

483
00:57:14,230 --> 00:57:15,690
This is not an infinite loop question.

484
00:57:15,690 --> 00:57:19,145
This is a different answer question.

485
00:57:19,145 --> 00:57:25,880
The reason is that if you remember the implementation of NOT, NOT acted as a filter.

486
00:57:25,880 --> 00:57:36,520
NOT said I'm going to take some possible dictionaries, some possible frames, some possible answers, and filter out the ones that happened to satisfy some condition, and that's how I implement NOT.

487
00:57:36,520 --> 00:57:47,720
If you think about what's going on here, I'll build this query box where the output of an address piece gets fed into a perfect piece.

488
00:57:50,290 --> 00:57:55,290
What will happen is the address piece will set up some things of everyone whose address I know.

489
00:57:55,290 --> 00:57:59,880
Those will get filtered by the NOTs inside perfect here.

490
00:57:59,880 --> 00:58:04,910
So it will throw out the ones which happened to be either mortal or fallible.

491
00:58:04,910 --> 00:58:09,520
In the other order what happens is I set this up, started up with an empty frame.

492
00:58:09,520 --> 00:58:13,920
The perfect in here doesn't find anything for the NOTs to filter, so nothing comes out here at all.

493
00:58:18,830 --> 00:58:21,940
And there's sort of nothing there that gets fed into the address thing.

494
00:58:21,940 --> 00:58:24,260
So here, I don't get an answer.

495
00:58:24,260 --> 00:58:27,440
And again, the reason for that is NOT isn't generating anything.

496
00:58:27,440 --> 00:58:28,800
NOT's only throwing out things.

497
00:58:28,800 --> 00:58:32,020
And if I never started up with anything, there's nothing for it to throw out.

498
00:58:32,020 --> 00:58:33,770
So out of this thing, I get the wrong answer.

499
00:58:37,200 --> 00:58:37,970
How can you fix that?

500
00:58:37,970 --> 00:58:39,070
Well, there are ways to fix that.

501
00:58:39,070 --> 00:58:41,410
So you might say, well, that's sort of stupid.

502
00:58:41,410 --> 00:58:44,900
Why are you just doing all your NOT stuff at the beginning?

503
00:58:44,900 --> 00:58:58,560
The right way to implement NOT is to realize that when you have conditions like NOT, you should generate all your answers first, and then with each of these dictionaries pass along until at the very end I'll do filtering.

504
00:58:58,560 --> 00:59:04,050
And there are implementations of logic languages that work like that that solve this particular problem.

505
00:59:06,660 --> 00:59:12,530
However, there's a more profound problem, which is which one of these is the right answer?

506
00:59:12,530 --> 00:59:15,320
Is it Mount Olympus or is it nothing?

507
00:59:15,320 --> 00:59:24,805
So you might say it's Mount Olympus, because after all, Zeus is in that database, and Zeus was neither mortal nor fallible.

508
00:59:29,550 --> 00:59:44,120
So you might say Zeus wants to satisfy NOT mortal Zeus or NOT fallible Zeus.

509
00:59:44,120 --> 00:59:47,638
But let's actually look at that database.

510
00:59:47,638 --> 00:59:49,320
Let's look at it.

511
00:59:49,320 --> 00:59:54,810
There's no way-- how does it know that Zeus is not fallible?

512
00:59:54,810 --> 00:59:57,930
There's nothing in there about that.

513
00:59:57,930 --> 00:59:59,410
What's in there is that humans are fallible.

514
01:00:02,390 --> 01:00:04,430
How does it know that Zeus is not mortal?

515
01:00:04,430 --> 01:00:07,980
There's nothing in there about that.

516
01:00:07,980 --> 01:00:16,690
It just said I don't have any rule, which-- the only way I can deduce something's mortal is if it's human, and that's all it really knows about mortal.

517
01:00:16,690 --> 01:00:25,300
And in fact, if you remember your classical mythology, you know that the Greek gods were not mortal but fallible.

518
01:00:25,300 --> 01:00:30,850
So the answer is not in the rules there.

519
01:00:30,850 --> 01:00:32,100
See, why does it deduce that?

520
01:00:34,710 --> 01:00:40,080
See, Socrates would certainly not have made this error of logic.

521
01:00:40,080 --> 01:00:43,370
What NOT needs in this language is not NOT.

522
01:00:43,370 --> 01:00:44,930
It's not the NOT of logic.

523
01:00:44,930 --> 01:00:55,140
What NOT needs in this language is not deducible from things in the database as opposed to not true.

524
01:00:55,140 --> 01:00:57,300
That's a very big difference.

525
01:00:57,300 --> 01:00:59,250
Subtle, but big.

526
01:00:59,250 --> 01:01:04,610
So, in fact, this is perfectly happy to say not anything that it doesn't know about.

527
01:01:04,610 --> 01:01:07,830
So if you ask it is it not true that Zeus likes chocolate ice cream?

528
01:01:07,830 --> 01:01:10,251
It will say sure, it's not true.

529
01:01:10,251 --> 01:01:12,850
Or anything else or anything it doesn't know about.

530
01:01:12,850 --> 01:01:18,280
NOT means not deducible from the things you've told me.

531
01:01:18,280 --> 01:01:27,050
In a world where you're identifying not deducible with, in fact, not true, this is called the closed world assumption.

532
01:01:36,870 --> 01:01:38,320
The closed world assumption.

533
01:01:38,320 --> 01:01:46,500
Anything that I cannot deduce from what I know is not true, right?

534
01:01:46,500 --> 01:01:49,290
If I don't know anything about x, the x isn't true.

535
01:01:49,290 --> 01:01:51,420
That's very dangerous.

536
01:01:51,420 --> 01:01:54,480
From a logical point of view, first of all, it doesn't really makes sense.

537
01:01:54,480 --> 01:02:00,240
Because if I don't know anything about x, I'm willing to say not x.

538
01:02:00,240 --> 01:02:03,850
But am I willing to say not not x?

539
01:02:03,850 --> 01:02:06,470
Well, sure, I don't know anything about that either maybe.

540
01:02:06,470 --> 01:02:15,970
So not not x is not necessarily the same as x and so on and so on and so on, so there's some sort of funny bias in there.

541
01:02:15,970 --> 01:02:17,290
So that's sort of funny.

542
01:02:17,290 --> 01:02:27,210
The second thing, if you start building up real reasoning programs based on this, think how dangerous that is.

543
01:02:27,210 --> 01:02:37,780
You're saying I know I'm in a position to deduce everything true that's relevant to this problem.

544
01:02:37,780 --> 01:02:48,860
I'm reasoning, and built into my reasoning mechanism is the assumption that anything that I don't know can't possibly be relevant to this problem, right?

545
01:02:48,860 --> 01:02:54,720
There are a lot of big organizations that work like that, right?

546
01:02:54,720 --> 01:02:56,830
Most corporate marketing divisions work like that.

547
01:02:56,830 --> 01:03:00,560
You know the consequences to that.

548
01:03:00,560 --> 01:03:12,600
So it's very dangerous to start really typing in these big logical implication systems and going on what they say, because they have this really limiting assumption built in.

549
01:03:12,600 --> 01:03:14,905
So you have to be very, very careful about that.

550
01:03:14,905 --> 01:03:16,560
And that's a deep problem.

551
01:03:16,560 --> 01:03:23,840
That's not a problem about we can make a little bit cleverer implementation and do the filters and organize the infinite loops to make them go away.

552
01:03:23,840 --> 01:03:25,920
It's a different kind of problem.

553
01:03:25,920 --> 01:03:27,060
It's a different semantics.

554
01:03:27,060 --> 01:03:50,560
So I think to wrap this up, it's fair to say that logic programming I think is a terrifically exciting idea, the idea that you can bridge this gap from the imperative to the declarative, that you can start talking about relations and really get tremendous power by going above the abstraction of what's my input and what's my output.

555
01:03:50,560 --> 01:03:58,080
And linked to logic, the problem is it's a goal that I think has yet to be realized.

556
01:03:58,080 --> 01:04:09,460
And probably one of the very most interesting research questions going on now in languages is how do you somehow make a real logic language?

557
01:04:09,460 --> 01:04:18,680
And secondly, how do you bridge the gap from this world of logic and relations to the worlds of more traditional languages and somehow combine the power of both.

558
01:04:18,680 --> 01:04:19,930
OK, let's break.

559
01:04:23,750 --> 01:04:27,430
AUDIENCE: Couldn't you solve that last problem by having the extra rules that imply it?

560
01:04:27,430 --> 01:04:32,210
The problem here is you have the definition of something, but you don't have the definition of its opposite.

561
01:04:32,210 --> 01:04:40,370
If you include in the database something that says something implies mortal x, something else implies not mortal x, haven't you basically solved the problem?

562
01:04:43,370 --> 01:04:46,910
PROFESSOR: But the issue is do you put a finite number of those in?

563
01:04:50,740 --> 01:04:57,220
AUDIENCE: If things are specified always in pairs-- PROFESSOR: But the impression is then what do you do about deduction?

564
01:05:00,200 --> 01:05:03,400
You can't specify NOTs.

565
01:05:03,400 --> 01:05:07,960
But the problem is, in a big system, it turns out that might not be a finite number of things.

566
01:05:12,820 --> 01:05:15,290
There are also sort of two issues.

567
01:05:15,290 --> 01:05:16,690
Partly it might not be finite.

568
01:05:16,690 --> 01:05:21,510
Partly it might be that's not what you want.

569
01:05:21,510 --> 01:05:25,120
So a good example would be suppose I want to do connectivity.

570
01:05:25,120 --> 01:05:28,050
I want a reason about connectivity.

571
01:05:28,050 --> 01:05:35,480
And I'm going to tell you there's four things: a and b and c and d.

572
01:05:35,480 --> 01:05:43,200
And I'll tell you a is connected to b and c's connected to d.

573
01:05:43,200 --> 01:05:45,260
And now I'll tell you is a connected to d?

574
01:05:45,260 --> 01:05:46,780
That's the question.

575
01:05:46,780 --> 01:05:50,610
There's an example where I would like something like the closed world assumption.

576
01:05:54,200 --> 01:06:01,340
That's a tiny toy, but a lot of times, I want to be able to say something like anything that I haven't told you, assume is not true.

577
01:06:04,260 --> 01:06:09,470
So it's not as simple as you only want to put in explicit NOTs all over the place.

578
01:06:09,470 --> 01:06:14,150
It's that sometimes it really isn't clear what you even want.

579
01:06:14,150 --> 01:06:20,960
That having to specify both everything and not everything is too precise, and then you get down into problems there.

580
01:06:20,960 --> 01:06:26,510
But there are a lot of approaches that explicitly put in NOTs and reason based on that.

581
01:06:26,510 --> 01:06:28,070
So it's a very good idea.

582
01:06:28,070 --> 01:06:33,490
It's just that then it starts becoming a little cumbersome in the very large problems you'd like to use.

583
01:06:43,460 --> 01:06:53,840
AUDIENCE: I'm not sure how directly related to the argument this is, but one of your points was that one of the dangers of the closed rule is you never really know all the things that are there.

584
01:06:53,840 --> 01:06:55,930
You never really know all the parts to it.

585
01:06:55,930 --> 01:06:58,160
Isn't that a major problem with any programming?

586
01:06:58,160 --> 01:07:07,390
I always write programs where I assume that I've got all the cases, and so I check for them all or whatever, and somewhere down the road, I find out that I didn't check for one of them.

587
01:07:07,390 --> 01:07:08,540
PROFESSOR: Well, sure, it's true.

588
01:07:08,540 --> 01:07:19,600
But the problem here is it's that assumption which is the thing that you're making if you believe you're identifying this with logic.

589
01:07:19,600 --> 01:07:20,510
So you're quite right.

590
01:07:20,510 --> 01:07:22,220
It's a situation you're never in.

591
01:07:22,220 --> 01:07:33,470
The problem is if you're starting to believe that what this is doing is logic and you look at the rules you write down and say what can I deduce from them, you have to be very careful to remember that NOT means something else.

592
01:07:33,470 --> 01:07:39,030
And it means something else based on an assumption which is probably not true.

593
01:07:39,030 --> 01:07:47,990
AUDIENCE: Do I understand you correctly that you cannot fix this problem without killing off all possibilities of inference through altering NOT?

594
01:07:47,990 --> 01:07:49,370
PROFESSOR: No, that's not quite right.

595
01:07:49,370 --> 01:07:56,340
There are other--  there are ways to do logic with real NOTs.

596
01:07:56,340 --> 01:07:58,540
There are actually ways to do that.

597
01:07:58,540 --> 01:08:01,610
But they're very inefficient as far as anybody knows.

598
01:08:01,610 --> 01:08:11,980
And they're much more--  the, quote, inference in here is built into this unifier and this pattern matching unification algorithm.

599
01:08:11,980 --> 01:08:16,590
There are ways to automate real logical reasoning.

600
01:08:16,590 --> 01:08:23,850
But it's not based on that, and logic programming languages don't tend to do that because it's very inefficient as far as anybody knows.

601
01:08:29,390 --> 01:08:30,640
All right, thank you.