1. One should not expect a program written in Prolog to solve or interpret a problem; it only plugs in values into the set rules and responds accordingly.

    

    

    

    

    

2. The definitions were the easiest part all you had to write was the general term and then the specific kind in parenthesis.

    

    

    

    

    

3. Prolog is good for implementing clear-cut and definite structures which can be easily described as a action-result sentences but if the search trees involved are more complicated and not easily describes in levels than Prolog is probably not the best language to do your project in.

    

    

    

    

    

4. I was frustrated by the limitations of the sample "kingdom" code when I saw that "mammal(X)." returned Frisky and Fido, but not dog or cat.

    

    

    

    

    

5. This idea that logic can be simulated by methodlically going through a list of facts and rules seems foreign to me in comparison to what I believed was by personal logical process, which is more dynamic and changeable than Prolog is capable of being.

    

    

    

    

    

6. I don't think computers will ever learn to think or become smarter than humans since as we create smarter programs we are also becoming smarter.

    

    

    

    

    

7. Again, Prolog doesn't distinguish between fact and opinion, it merely regurgitates what it is told...it doesn't seem capable of coming up with anything it isn't explicitly told.

    

    

    

    

    

8. The answers were always nouns. Basically this proves to me that computers really can not think. They can only follow rules and that is all.