Talk:Computational logic

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Oppose merge with Logic in Computer Science

There is a merge proposal with Logic in Computer Science. I oppose the merge. IMO they refer to vary different thing. Computational logic refers to the logic (i.e. the process model) for ANY computer system. So a video game or an SAP module all have computational logic, the logic that governs their behavior. Logic in computer science is a very different topic, it's actually a very broad topic, the many applications of Logic to computer science. Theorem provers, prolog, program transformations, etc. Related but not the same. You would use Logic in computer science (e.g. a theorem prover) to reason about Computational logic (e.g. validate the control flow of a transaction system matches it's specification). MadScientistX11 (talk) 19:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're partly right, depending who you ask. I think "computational logic" is a vague term with no single widely accepted meaning. Some of the various (unreferenced) claims on the page contradict each other as to the scope/meaning etc. 86.127.138.67 (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Independent of any stand on the merge proposal itself, I strongly object to the objector's equation of "logic" with "process model". This usage is of a piece with the lamentable common talk about "logical design" in a sense that has very little to do with Logic proper.--Brinklec (talk) 20:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
If there are good reasons not to merge Computational Logic with Logic in Computer Science, the statement: "It [Computational Logic] is synonymous with "logic in computer science" should be removed and an explanation of the distinction put in its place.Faff296 (talk) 05:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Disambiguation

I believe "computational logic" should be understood as having two unambiguous uses:

1) broadly, as an inclusive term for all uses of Logic in Computer Science or in practical computation. This broad use should not include things like process models, which do not belong to Logic proper, but rather to the vagaries of so-called "logical" design (which I believe is a widespread misuse of the adjective "logical"). On the other hand, Logic proper should be taken as including not only particular formalizaions of mathematical logics, but also a wide range of "meta" considerations on their development, design, use, and modification, plus consideration of material inference rules, their contextual application and formalized representation (e.g., "knowledge representation"), and their interaction with formal inference.

2) more narrowly, as especially concerned with logics of computable functions or constructive logics, as used for example in programming language theory and interactive theorem proving, with their practical applications. Unfortunately, people working in these latter areas do not currently much use the term "computational logic".

Historically, there has often been an unfortunate, overly narrow identification of computational logic with logic programming and logic programming with Prolog-like languages. Though it is a common social phenomenon, equation of general terms and concepts with much more specific implementations or approaches tends to eclipse the general meaning and hinder communication between specialist communities.--Brinklec (talk) 20:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

International Center for Computational Logic

There is an International Center for Computational Logic at the

Dresden University of Technology. —IslandGyrl (talk) 05:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

"Alternative rerm"

What is a "rerm"? 140.177.152.128 (talk) 23:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Computational_logic&oldid=1201086652"