> "how should I feel if you just "agree" with me as a way to get me to stop arguing?"

Triumphant? Victorious? magnificent, successful, proud, powerful, insert any adjective which applies to a situation where someone wanted something, and then got it.

> "And it is very hard to see how carrying out a proof automatically is "not reasoning. The same clearly does not apply to Python, because its interpreter is not an automated theorem prover; it doesn't apply to javascript because its interpreter is not an automated theorem prover"

And that does not stop Python or Javascript from being used to find solutions to e.g. an Einstein Puzzle, something a human might call "a reasoning problem". This means Prolog 'doing reasoning' must not be the thing which solves the 'reasoning problem', something else must be doing that because non-reasoning systems can do it too.

If Prolog 'doing reasoning' meant it could solve 'reasoning problems' that no other programming language could, that would be a strong reason to use Prolog, but that is not something you or the other 'reasoning' commenters have claimed or offered examples of. Clearly the word 'reasoning' has different definitions in the different sentences and that is important here because I am responding to one and youall on the other.

If 'doing reasoning' is not the thing which makes it useful for 'solving reasoning problems' - if that neither compels one to use Prolog when working to 'solve a reasoning problem', nor convinces one to avoid other languages - if the definition does not influence one's decision in any way - it's very hard to see how it is the relevant version of 'reasoning' to focus on, and what point is trying to be made by this insistence on focusing on it, except academic one-upping.

You call it the dumbest thing you have ever read, and say that I know nothing - but you agree that it is a correct statement ("Prolog does a specific type of formalized reasoning").

> "What does this even mean?"

For someone who is so eager to call comments dumb, you sure have a lot of not-understanding going on.

1. Someone said "Prolog is good at reasoning problems"

2. I said it isn't any better than other languages.

3. Prolog people jumped on me because Ackchually Technickally everything Prolog does is 'reasoning' hah gotcha!

4. I say that is entirely unrelated to the 'reasoning' in "Prolog is good at reasoning problems". I demonstrate this by reductio ad absurdum - if executing "?- 1=1." is "reasoning" then it's absurd for the person to be saying that definition is a compelling reason to use Prolog, therefore they were not saying that, therefore this whole tangent about whether some formalism is or isn't reasoning by some academic definition is irrelevant to the claim and counter claim.

> "are merely arguing for argument's sake."

Presumably you are arguing for some superior purpose?

The easiest way for you to change my mind is to demonstrate literally anything that is better for an LLM to emit in Prolog than Python - given the condition that LLMs don't have to care about conciseness or expressivity or readability in the same way humans do. For one example I say it would no better for an LLM to solve an Einstein Puzzle one way or the other. The fact that you can't or won't do this, and prefer insults, is not changing my mind nor is it educating me in anything.

"?- 1=1." is Prolog code. Executing Prolog code is reasoning. Therefore that is reasoning. Q.E.D. This is the point you refused to move on from until I agreed. So I agreed. So we could get back to the interesting topic.

A topic you had no interest in, only interest dragging onto a trangent and grinding it down to make ... what point, exactly? If "executing Prolog code" is reasoning, then what? I say it isn't useful to call it reasoning (in the context of this thread) because it's too broad to be a helpful definition, basically everything is reasoning, and almost nothing is not. When I tried to say in advance that this wouldn't be a useful direction and I didn't want to go here, you said it was " not a great way to have a discussion". And now having dragged me off onto this academic tangent, you dismiss it as "I wasn't interested in that other topic anyway". Annoying.

The word "reason" came into this thread with the original comment:

    3. LLMs are bad at solving reasoning problems.

    4. Prolog is good at solving reasoning problems.

I think that's not a useful place to be, so I was trying to head off going there. But now I'll go with you - I agree it IS reasoning - can you please support your case that "executing Prolog code is reasoning" makes Prolog more useful for LLMs to emit than Python?

Clearly people write parsers in C and C++ and Pascal and OCAML, etc. What does it mean to come in with "the reason you can write parsers with Prolog..."? I'm not claiming that reason is incorrect, I'm handwaving it away as irrelevant and academic. Like saying that Lisp map() is better than Python map() because Lisp map is based on formal Lambda Calculus and Python map is an inferior imitation for blub programmers. When a programmer maps a function over a list and gets a result, it's a distinction without a difference. When a programmer writes a getchar() peek() and goto state machine parser with no formalism, it works, what difference does the formalism behind the implementation practically make?

Yes maybe the Prolog way means concise code is easier for a human to tell whether the code is a correct expression of the intent, but an LLM won't look at it like that. Whatever the formalism brings, it isn't enough that every parser task is done in Prolog in the last 50 years. Therefore it isn't any particular interest or benefit, except academic.

> both acceptor and generator

Also academically interesting but practically useless due to the combinatorial explosion of "all possible valid grammars" after the utterly basic "aaaaabbbbbbbbbbbb" examples.

> "how you and the OP reconcile the ability to carry out a formal proof with the inability to do reasoning. How is it not reasoning, if you're doing a proof? If a proof is not reasoning, then what is?"

If drawing a painting is art, is it art if a computer pulls up a picture of a painting and shows it on screen? No. If a human coded the proof into a computer, the human is reasoning, the computer isn't. If the computer comes up with the proof, the computer is reasoning. Otherwise you're in a situation where dominos falling over is "doing reasoning" because it can be expressed formally as a chain of connected events where the last one only falls if the whole chain is built properly, and that's absurdum.