is inconsistent with earlier

Листинг А.2. Трассировка решения задачи Р4

CLIPS> (reset)

==> f-0 (initial-fact)

==> f-1 (world (tag 1) (scope truth) (context 0))

==> f-2 (statement (speaker A)

(claim OR F A T B) (reason 0) (tag 1))

CLIPS> (run)

FIRE 1 unwrap-trues f-1,f-2

Assumption

A is a knight, so (OR F A T B) is true.

==> f-3 (claim (content OR F A T B)

(reason 1) (scope truth) (context 0))

==> f-4 (claim (content T A) (reason 1)

(scope truth) (context 0)) FIRE 2 left-or: f-1,f-3

==> f-5 (claim (content F A) (reason 1)

(scope truth) (context 1))

<== f-1 (world (tag 1) (scope truth) (context 0))

==> f-6 (world (tag 1) (scope truth) (context 1))

FIRE 3 contra-truth-scope: f-6,f-4,f-5

Disjunct 1 is inconsistent with earlier truth context.

<== f-5 (claim (content F A) (reason 1)

(scope truth) (context 1)) FIRE 4 right-or: f-6,f-3 .

==> f-7 (claim (content Т В) (reason 1)

(scope truth) (context 2))

<== f-6 (world (tag 1) (scope truth)

(context 1))

==> f-8 (world (tag 1) (scope truth)

(context 2))

FIRE 5 consist-truth: f-8, f-2

Statement is consistent:

<== f-8 (world (tag 1) (scope truth) (context 2))

==> f-9 (world (tag 1) (scope consist) (context 2))

FIRE 6 true-knight: f-9, f-7

В is a knight

<== f-7 (claim (content Т В) (reason 1)

(scope truth) (context 2))

FIRE 7 true-knight: f-9,f-4

A is a knight

<== f-4 (claim (content Т A) (reason 1)

(scope truth) (context 0))

CLIPS>