Not really. If it doesn’t fit one page, I guess its not anymore sweet
fragrance “vanilla”. More a bagful of potatoes with a musty smell.
How would you make a teaching friendly version of your claim?
Starting with “vanilla” interpreter, pardon the cuts:
solve(true) :- !.
solve((A,B)) :- !, solve(A), solve(B).
solve(H) :- clause(H, B), solve(B).
What would be the extra for “abduction”? In my mind I
have like one extra line and some DCG magic.
Edit 07.01.2023
I took SLD what it is, no negation, unlike SLDNF. The SLDNF meta
interpretater has one extra line for NF. Here is the solution for some
SLD “abduction”, using DCG to return the abducted literals:
/* SWI-Prolog 9.1.0 */
solve(true) --> !.
solve((A,B)) --> !, solve(A), solve(B).
solve(A) --> {abducible(A)}, !, [A].
solve(H) --> {clause(H, B)}, solve(B).
Here is an example run:
/* SWI-Prolog 9.1.0 */
engine(turns) :- battery(nonempty).
abducible(battery(_)).
?- solve(engine(turns), L, []).
L = [battery(nonempty)].