Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Allow zero-place predicates in FOL #12

Open
rzach opened this issue Apr 6, 2019 · 3 comments
Open

Allow zero-place predicates in FOL #12

rzach opened this issue Apr 6, 2019 · 3 comments

Comments

@rzach
Copy link
Member

rzach commented Apr 6, 2019

When rzach/forallx-yyc#15 is dealt with, forallx will allow zero-place predicate symbols. The proof checker should then do the same.

@rzach
Copy link
Member Author

rzach commented Sep 8, 2019

As of Fall 2019 edition of forallx-yyc, FOL syntax has atomic formulas surrounded by parentheses, and sentence letters are counted as FOL formulas. That means that the parser can distinguish between quantifiers (Ax) and formulas (A(x)). Change the code to correctly parse FOL formulas. This no longer requires choosing if the proof is in TFL or FOL.

@frabjous
Copy link
Collaborator

frabjous commented Sep 8, 2019

Looks like it's not just parentheses that are added, but also commas between the terms for polyadic predicates.

I'm not thrilled about this change if these parentheses and commas are to be treated as mandatory. I'm too lazy to write "R(x, y)" rather than "Rxy" every time; and if they're not mandatory, it doesn't solve the "∀x" problem. But I don't really consider that a very serious problem; maybe others do.

Ideally, however, the code would be modular enough to allow an instructor to choose their own precise syntactic rules. This would go along with also making the precise deduction rule set modifiable as well. Of course, that's a bigger project than just tweaking the current parse function.

I've been thinking for awhile of a much larger project which may involve a complete rewrite of all this stuff, also involving the ability for students to log in, save answers, get scores on exercises, etc., which would mean either making it all into a plugin for Moodle, or using the LTI standard for interoperability with an LMS, or something similar. Does anyone use an LMS other than Moodle? (Maybe this is not the place to have this discussion.)

@rzach
Copy link
Member Author

rzach commented Sep 8, 2019

True, yes. I wasn't suggesting you do this; more of a reminder to myself that this should be done if it's going to work with my version of forallx. And yes, we should make it so that it works the old way too: a switch for original forallx or forallx-yyc syntax.

In the long run, the carnap package (https://carnap.io/) is maybe the way to go for LMS integration & automated grading. (I use Brightspace/D2L)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants