> - No indication for whether the CPU/GPU/RAM/SSD are upgradable or all soldered together on the board.
According to a video by Digital Foundry, the main limitation will be the 8 GB of VRAM (some new games may require more), which definitely can't be upgraded.
There seems to an interesting difference between Prolog and conventional (predicate) logic.
In Prolog, anything that can't be inferred from the knowledge base is false. If nothing about "playsAirGuitar(mia)" is implied by the knowledge base, it's false. All the facts are assumed to be given; therefore, if something isn't given, it must be false.
Predicate logic is the opposite: If I can't infer anything about "playsAirGuitar(mia)" from my axioms, it might be true or false. It's truth value is unknown. It's true in some model of the axioms, and false in others. The statement is independent of the axioms.
Deductive logic assumes an open universe, Prolog a closed universe.
It's not really false I think. It's 'no', which is an answer to a question "Do I know this to be true?"
I think there should be a room for three values there: true, unprovable, false. Where false things are also unprovable. I wonder if Prolog has false, defined as "yes" of the opposite.
> It's not really false I think. It's 'no', which is an answer to a question "Do I know this to be true?"
I don't think so, because in this case both x and not-x could be "no", but I think in Prolog, if x is "no", not-x is "yes", even if neither is known to be true. It's not a three-valued logic that doesn't adhere to the law of the excluded middle.
If x is "no" (I do not know this to be true) then not-x is "yes" (I do know this to be true). So negation still works as usual.
"Yes" is not "true" but rather "provably true". And "no" is not "false" but rather "not provably true".
Third sensible value in this framework (which I think Prolog doesn't have) would be "false" meaning "it's provably false" ("the opposite of it is provably true").
To be frank I think Prolog in newer implementations completely abandoned this nuance and just call states "true" and "false" instead of "yes" and "no".
> If x is "no" (I do not know this to be true) then not-x is "yes" (I do know this to be true). So negation still works as usual.
As I said though, that doesn't make sense. Because if I don't know x to be true because it is not mentioned in the knowledge base, I also don't know not-x to be true. So both would have to be "no". But they aren't. Therefore the knowledge interpretation is incorrect. Knowledge wouldn't be closed under negation. If you don't know something to be true, that doesn't imply that you know it to be false.
Political bumper stickers are also a thing up here in Canada, but probably like 1-5% as common. I'm often shocked to see how common they are when I'm down in the US. Like I find it weird that so many people are eager to passive agressively advertise their political views to the public (and usually the more polarizing views).
The most common sticker we've got is the infamous "F--- Trudeau" sticker. And I'm even seeing fewer of those these days since he's no longer PM.
Not really, because the standard in air travel is that departure and arrival dates and times are always local to the departure or arrival airport, regardless of where you are when you book the flight (or what time it is locally when you book).
In the case of Japanese, there is 午前・午後 for 12-hour time. e.g. 午後９時に着く (arrive at 9 P.M.). If it's obvious from context, then only the hour is said. e.g. in「明日３時にね」, the flow of the conversation disambiguates the hour (it's also unlikely the speaker means 3 A.M.)
There are also other ways to convey 12-hour time. e.g. 朝６時に起きる (wake up at 6 A.M. / wake up at 6 in the morning).
reply