Re: dynamic programming

On 5/09/2013, at 10:48 PM, Kilián Imre wrote:
> "Dynamic programming": Thanks for the advise: though the usage of the cited expression, in my opinion is bad, in communication with you I will avoid it...

I am having trouble understanding "the usage of the cited expression .. is bad".

There is a whole family of Operations Techniques like linear programming,
mixed integer programming, quadratic programming, convex programming, and
dynamic programming.  These terms were well established, including
"dynamic programming", before Prolog was a twinkle in Colmerauer's eye.
They refer to constructing a "programme" (or "plan"), not to human coding.

Dynamic programming, in particular, is a technique that any declarative
programmer should be familiar with, closely related to tabling.

Polysemy is widespread in English:
 
	husky
	1.1 An Inuit person.
	1.2 A dog of the kind used by the Inuit.
	1.3 An Inuit language.
	2   A strong stoutly-built person (from 3.2)
	3.1 Pertaining to husks
	3.2 Strong like a corn-husk
	3.3 Dry like a husk
	3.4 (A person whose) voice sounds dry like a husk
	4.  Relating to a chrysalis (once known as a husk)

So "dynamic" and "programming" are hardly alone.

> 
> (but anyhow I am still curious what could happen with my 6.3.x, why have I seen different result for predicates whose certain clauses had been partially consulted before, and for those that were merely dynamically created...)

I feel a rather tepid curiosity about that.  As long as the stored clauses
behave correctly, as long as the clause bodies you get back are _equivalent_
to what you put in, it really doesn't matter much.  I don't believe the
standard requires a Prolog system to store the same representative of a clause
body every time.