You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
While experimenting, I have found an unexpected behavior regarding the following code.
a:- b(c(d(X))).b(c(O)) :- e(O).e(h).
?- not a.
% Model: {e(h) b(c(h)) not b(c(X | X \notin {h})) not a}
While normal execution can find a correct model+proof, running with option --dcc fails to find a valid model in this case.
Is there a recursion depth limit for --dcc, that I can manually modify?
Minimal pairs (success with --dcc)
a:- b(c(d(X))).b(c(h)).% Induction does not have to continue further
?- not a.
a:- b(d(X)).% Only two layers deepb(O) :- e(O).e(h).
?- not a.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
jinulee-v
changed the title
Dynamic Consistency Check (DCC) does not preserve semantics
[BUG?] Dynamic Consistency Check (DCC) does not preserve semantics
Sep 8, 2023
While experimenting, I have found an unexpected behavior regarding the following code.
While normal execution can find a correct model+proof, running with option
--dcc
fails to find a valid model in this case.Is there a recursion depth limit for
--dcc
, that I can manually modify?Minimal pairs (success with
--dcc
)The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: