|
|
| Author |
Message |
Daniel al-Autistiqui
science forum beginner
Joined: 16 May 2006
Posts: 6
|
 Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 4:43 pm Post subject:
Discussion of Infix KIF on Stanford logic site
|
|
|
Hello again, everyone. I have decided to simply copy and paste from
the online page I referred to recently
(http://logic.stanford.edu/kif/dpans.html) the entire section about
infix notation. Here goes:
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
11 Infix Syntax
11.1 Introduction
Infix KIF is a syntactic variant of prefix KIF using infix syntax. For
every expression in Infix KIF, there is a logically equivalent
expression in KIF. However, the reverse is not true; some KIF
expressions have been dropped for simplicity, eg. complex
conditionals, complex variable specifications in quantified sentences,
and documentation strings in definitions.
This chapter gives the full grammar for Infix KIF using nonterminals
similar to those in the specification of Prefix KIF. (A few extra
nonterminals are used here to define the more complicated syntax of
Infix KIF.) This parallel treatment of nonterminals conveys the
relationship between the two syntaxes.
Note that Infix KIF is NOT intended for use in the exchange of
knowledge between computers. It is provided solely for consumption by
humans, in articles about KIF and possibly in knowledge base editors.
Prefix KIF is preferred for exchange of knowledge between machines.
Its simpler syntax makes it easier to write parsers and makes it
possible to write parsers that are more efficient.
11.2 Characters
upper ::= A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M |
N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z
lower ::= a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | i | j | k | l | m |
n | o | p | q | r | s | t | u | v | w | x | y | z
digit ::= 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9
alpha ::= $ | % | ? | @ | _
special ::= " | # | ' | ( | ) | , | \ | ^ | ` | |
! | & | * | + | - | . | / | < | = | > | ~
white ::= space | tab | return | linefeed | page
normal ::= upper | lower | digit | alpha
11.3 Lexemes
word ::= normal | word normal | word\character
charref ::= #\character
string ::= "quotable"
quotable ::= empty | quotable strchar | quotable\character
strchar ::= character - {",\}
block ::= # int(n) q character^n | # int(n) Q character^n
variable ::= upper word
operator ::= termop | sentop | defop
termop ::= listof | quote | if
sentop ::= = | /= | not | and | or | => | <= | <=> |
forall | exists
defop ::= defobject | defunction | defrelation | deflogical |
:= | :-> | :<= | :=>
constant ::= word - variable - operator
atom ::= word | charref | string | block
11.4 Expressions
The following BNF grammar defines the legal expressions in Infix KIF.
Note that parentheses are specified only where essential. It is
permissible to add parentheses, in pairs, around any term or sentence,
in order to specify a particular association of expressions. In the
absence of parentheses, parsers are required to associate to the
right.
term ::= indvar | constant | charref | string | block |
funterm | listterm | quoterm | logterm
terms ::= empty | termlist | termlist ; seqvar
termlist ::= term | term , termlist
funterm ::= constant(terms)
listterm ::= [terms]
quoterm ::= 'expr'
expr ::= atom | [] | [exprlist]
exprlist ::= expr | expr , exprlist
logterm ::= if(loglist) | if(loglist,term)
loglist ::= sentence , term | sentence , term , loglist
sentence ::= constant | equation | inequality |
relsent | logsent | quantsent
sentencelist ::= sentence | sentence , sentencelist
equation ::= term=term
inequality ::= term/=term
relsent ::= constant(terms)
logsent ::= ~sentence
sentence & sentence |
sentence | sentence |
sentence => sentence |
sentence <= sentence |
sentence <=> sentence
quantsent ::= Avariable).sentence |
Evariable).sentence
vars ::= empty | varlist | varlist ; seqvar
varlist ::= indvar | indvar , varlist
definition ::= unrestricted | complete | partial
unrestricted ::=
defobject(constant,sentencelist) |
deffunction(constant,sentencelist) |
defrelation(constant,sentencelist) |
deflogical(constant,sentencelist)
complete ::=
defobject(constant := term) |
deffunction(constant(vars) := term) |
defrelation(constant(vars) := sentence) |
deflogical(constant := sentence)
partial ::=
defobject(constant :-> indvar :<= sentence) |
defobject(constant :-> indvar :=> sentence) |
deffunction(constant(vars) :-> indvar :<= sentence) |
deffunction(constant(vars) :-> indvar :=> sentence) |
defrelation(constant(vars) :<= sentence) |
defrelation(constant(vars) :=> sentence) |
deflogical(constant :<= sentence)
deflogical(constant :=> sentence)
form ::= sentence | definition
As with prefix KIF, a knowledge base in Infix KIF is a finite set of
forms, not a sequence, though, as with Prefix KIF, there may be
heursitic value in the order.
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
I had read the above BNF grammars several times, finding numerous
errors. It's been hard to sort out exactly where the errors are, but
now that I've looked at it again I've remembered what the basic
problem must have been: in modifying the grammar of KIF to indicate
the "infix" form of the language, they apparently retained certain
elements of "prefix" KIF. One thing I note is that in writing the BNF
definitions they keep using the nonexistent symbols "indvar" and
"seqvar", which I think should just be "variable". The "indvar" and
"seqvar" symbols are defined in the grammar for Prefix KIF, but it
seems that in writing the grammar for Infix KIF the do away with the
"sequence variables" (seqvar). Thus it seems, for example, that the
line
term ::= indvar | constant | charref | string | block |
funterm | listterm | quoterm | logterm
should be
term ::= variable | constant | charref | string | block |
funterm | listterm | quoterm | logterm
Maybe someone else who knows how to read BNF notation can spot more
errors. I know there were other confusions of the infix language with
Prefix KIF. For all I know, I may possibly be able to come up with a
system of logical notation on my own, perhaps by working from the
symbol "term" and discarding things that I don't need (I don't think I
would be using "charref", "string", or "block" in my system).
This post might be a bit long because of the quoting of the Web page.
Please try to respond anyway.
daniel mcgrath
--
Daniel Gerard McGrath, a/k/a "Govende":
for e-mail replace "invalid" with "com"
Developmentally disabled;
has Autism (Pervasive Developmental Disorder),
Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder,
& periodic bouts of depression.
[This signature is under construction.] |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jan Burse
science forum addict
Joined: 27 Jan 2006
Posts: 85
|
| Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 5:14 pm Post subject:
Re: Discussion of Infix KIF on Stanford logic site
|
|
|
Daniel al-Autistiqui wrote:
| Quote: | Hello again, everyone. I have decided to simply copy and paste from
the online page I referred to recently
|
Why don't you simply implement a parser,
for example via lex and yacc.
And then try to use it some context. Then
you will know about most of the errors.
Errors in documentation of syntaxes occur
mostly when the documentation is not automatically
generated and manually maintained.
If the syntax is based on a tool like lex
or yacc one could try to copy the definition
files of these tools into the documentation.
On the otherhand it makes not a lot of sense
to review a syntax without a certain purpose,
i.e. a use contexts. Because there are so many
logics and syntaxes possible for all sorts
of purposes.
| Quote: | For all I know, I may possibly be able to
come up with a system of logical notation
on my own, perhaps by working from the
symbol "term" and discarding things that
I don't need
|
So what purpose do you have in mind?
A grand mother of all notations is the
lambda calculus. For example the FOL syntax
can be modeled as lambda expressions with the
following operators:
v (Disjunction): T x T -> T
~ (Negation): T -> T
# (Existence): V x T -> T
So the following FOL formula with infix
prefix and quantorfix notation:
exists x (P(x) v ~Q(x))
Can be display as a lambda expression
as follows, where \ denotes lambda
abstraction:
(# \x.(v (P x) (~ (Q x))))
I suggest to read the booklet by alonzo
church, and then some booklet by chomsky.
And this way become a little bit more
independent of syntax.
Also a good keyword for certain forms
of syntaxes are free algebras. Term
structurs are such algebras. If you
want to go totally mathematical.
Also I wouldn't call the lisp version
a prefix version. Because it has still
parenthesis. Real prefix operators
don't need parenthesis. For example
one can write:
- x + y
You don't have to write:
(- x) + y
The - is a prefix operator. Typically
a syntax is either lisp expressions,
or then a mix of prefix, infix and postfix
etc.. operators with normal term notation,
or something else.
A prefix, infix and postfix syntax
is also possible to describe such a
in the form of a table. This
is for example done in prolog. So instead
of listing dozens of grammar rules, one
can simply list the operators:
name: the name and surface name of the operator
level: a positive number between 0 and 1000, for example
binding: for prefix either fx or fy
for infix either xfx, xfy, yfx and yfy
for postfix either xf or yf
A syntax like KIF goes then as follows:
op('~', fy, 200)
op('&', xfy, 300)
op('|', xfy, 400)
op('<=', xfx, 500)
op('=>', xfx, 500)
op('<=>', xfx, 500)
Bye |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jan Burse
science forum addict
Joined: 27 Jan 2006
Posts: 85
|
| Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 5:36 pm Post subject:
Re: Discussion of Infix KIF on Stanford logic site
|
|
|
BTW: This is also a nice Paper:
http://www.win.tue.nl/automath/archive/pdf/aut096.pdf
In case you want to see the breadth of syntaxes.
Jan Burse wrote:
| Quote: | Daniel al-Autistiqui wrote:
Hello again, everyone. I have decided to simply copy and paste from
the online page I referred to recently |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steve Hayes
science forum beginner
Joined: 13 Feb 2006
Posts: 9
|
| Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 5:47 pm Post subject:
Re: Discussion of Infix KIF on Stanford logic site
|
|
|
On Thu, 18 May 2006 12:43:49 -0400, Daniel al-Autistiqui
<govende30@hotmail.invalid> wrote:
| Quote: | Hello again, everyone. I have decided to simply copy and paste from
the online page I referred to recently
(http://logic.stanford.edu/kif/dpans.html) the entire section about
infix notation. Here goes:
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
11 Infix Syntax
11.1 Introduction
Infix KIF is a syntactic variant of prefix KIF using infix syntax. For
every expression in Infix KIF, there is a logically equivalent
expression in KIF. However, the reverse is not true; some KIF
expressions have been dropped for simplicity, eg. complex
conditionals, complex variable specifications in quantified sentences,
and documentation strings in definitions.
|
Haven't a clue what all that's about.
As far as I know, "kif" was 1980's youth slang for "kewl".
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stephen Calder
science forum beginner
Joined: 18 May 2006
Posts: 1
|
| Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 9:43 pm Post subject:
Re: Discussion of Infix KIF on Stanford logic site
|
|
|
Daniel al-Autistiqui wrote:
| Quote: |
This post might be a bit long because of the quoting of the Web page.
Please try to respond anyway.
daniel mcgrath
|
Unfortunately my lack of computer knowledge prevents me from being of
any help.
--
Stephen
Lennox Head, Australia |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patricia Shanahan
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 13 May 2005
Posts: 214
|
| Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 10:43 pm Post subject:
Re: Discussion of Infix KIF on Stanford logic site
|
|
|
Daniel al-Autistiqui wrote:
....
| Quote: | Note that Infix KIF is NOT intended for use in the exchange of
knowledge between computers. It is provided solely for consumption by
humans, in articles about KIF and possibly in knowledge base editors.
Prefix KIF is preferred for exchange of knowledge between machines.
Its simpler syntax makes it easier to write parsers and makes it
possible to write parsers that are more efficient.
.... |
There is something weird going on here. Computer parsers have been
processing infix expressions since at least the first implementation of
Fortran, in the 1950s.
There are ways of designing a grammar that make parser construction
difficult, but infix expressions in an otherwise tractable grammar
should not be a problem. Similarly, given the speed of compilation of
large volumes of infix-notation programming language code, unless KIF
files are expected to be far too large for people to want to read them,
parser speed should not be an issue.
Patricia |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David Kinny
science forum beginner
Joined: 29 Apr 2006
Posts: 7
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 2:29 am Post subject:
Re: Discussion of Infix KIF on Stanford logic site
|
|
|
Followups trimmed.
Patricia Shanahan writes:
| Quote: | Daniel al-Autistiqui wrote:
...
Note that Infix KIF is NOT intended for use in the exchange of
knowledge between computers. It is provided solely for consumption by
humans, in articles about KIF and possibly in knowledge base editors.
Prefix KIF is preferred for exchange of knowledge between machines.
Its simpler syntax makes it easier to write parsers and makes it
possible to write parsers that are more efficient.
...
There is something weird going on here. Computer parsers have been
processing infix expressions since at least the first implementation of
Fortran, in the 1950s.
|
KIF is an influential but dated knowledge representation language,
based on Lisp s-expressions, designed for use by machines not people.
S-expressions are a parenthesized prefix notation which is trivially
easy to create and manipulate in the Lisp programming environments in
which KIF was first used. Its authors undoubtedly knew how to and
could have added infix expressions, but quite reasonably saw them
as unnecessary for the intended purpose.
Infix KIF is a later, derivative language intended to increase
readability of KIF examples, etc. For many sensible reasons, it was
never intended to replace KIF. I don't think it ever saw much use.
The original poster is trying to invent his own notation system for
symbolic logic. He has found and fixated on KIF, so it seems to be
close to what he thinks he wants.
David |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gene E. Bloch
science forum beginner
Joined: 19 May 2006
Posts: 2
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 4:07 am Post subject:
Re: Discussion of Infix KIF on Stanford logic site
|
|
|
On 5/18/2006, Daniel al-Autistiqui posted this:
| Quote: | Hello again, everyone. I have decided to simply copy and paste from
the online page I referred to recently
(http://logic.stanford.edu/kif/dpans.html) the entire section about
infix notation. Here goes:
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
11 Infix Syntax
|
....
| Quote: | This post might be a bit long because of the quoting of the Web page.
Please try to respond anyway.
daniel mcgrath
|
Well, you drove me to Google, which led me directly to
http://logic.stanford.edu/kif/dpans.html
At least now I have an idea of what KIF is about, but I don't intend to
try to grasp the entire BNF description :-)
Too much there for this lazy guy.
I was surprised by Patricia Shanahan's remark that the early FORTRAN
was an infix lagnuage. I only go back to FORTRAN II, and I haven't used
it for a long time. Maybe that's why I don't think of it as an infix
language.
Or does the word mean somthing else in computer science, compared to
the linguistic definition (which is all I know)?
Oh, well, I'm having fun...
Gino
--
Gene E. Bloch (Gino)
letters617blochg3251
(replace the numbers by "at" and "dotcom") |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patricia Shanahan
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 13 May 2005
Posts: 214
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 4:50 am Post subject:
Re: Discussion of Infix KIF on Stanford logic site
|
|
|
Gene E. Bloch wrote:
....
| Quote: | I was surprised by Patricia Shanahan's remark that the early FORTRAN was
an infix lagnuage. I only go back to FORTRAN II, and I haven't used it
for a long time. Maybe that's why I don't think of it as an infix language.
Or does the word mean somthing else in computer science, compared to the
linguistic definition (which is all I know)?
|
I meant in the computer science sense. The Wikepedia page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infix gives both definitions.
In the sense I meant it, which may be the relevant one for the
distinction between a prefix and infix version of a formal language, it
means having operators placed between their operands, rather than
preceding or following their operands.
For example: + a b might be the representation of addition of a and b in
a prefix languages, corresponding to a+b in an infix language. a+b can
then be treated as a unit for subsequent operations.
Productions like
logsent ::= ~sentence
sentence & sentence |
sentence | sentence |
sentence => sentence |
sentence <= sentence |
sentence <=> sentence
are just the sort of thing I would expect to see in a grammar for an
infix language in the computer science sense.
As far as Fortran is concerned, I don't have any really early
references. However, the ACM digital library has:
@article{368289,
author = {Peter B. Sheridan},
title = {The arithmetic translator-compiler of the IBM FORTRAN
automatic coding system},
journal = {Commun. ACM},
volume = {2},
number = {2},
year = {1959},
issn = {0001-0782},
pages = {9--21},
doi = {http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/368280.368289},
publisher = {ACM Press},
address = {New York, NY, USA},
}
Which includes the following Fortran expression, in fully parenthesized
form:
(((A + B) - C)/((D * (E + F)/G) - H + J)).
Patricia |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jan Burse
science forum addict
Joined: 27 Jan 2006
Posts: 85
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 9:26 am Post subject:
Re: Discussion of Infix KIF on Stanford logic site
|
|
|
FORTRAN = FORmel TRANslator
Patricia Shanahan wrote:
| Quote: | Gene E. Bloch wrote:
...
I was surprised by Patricia Shanahan's remark that the early FORTRAN
was an infix lagnuage. I only go back to FORTRAN II, and I haven't
used it for a long time. Maybe that's why I don't think of it as an
infix language.
Or does the word mean somthing else in computer science, compared to
the linguistic definition (which is all I know)?
I meant in the computer science sense. The Wikepedia page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infix gives both definitions.
In the sense I meant it, which may be the relevant one for the
distinction between a prefix and infix version of a formal language, it
means having operators placed between their operands, rather than
preceding or following their operands.
For example: + a b might be the representation of addition of a and b in
a prefix languages, corresponding to a+b in an infix language. a+b can
then be treated as a unit for subsequent operations.
Productions like
logsent ::= ~sentence
sentence & sentence |
sentence | sentence |
sentence => sentence |
sentence <= sentence |
sentence <=> sentence
are just the sort of thing I would expect to see in a grammar for an
infix language in the computer science sense.
As far as Fortran is concerned, I don't have any really early
references. However, the ACM digital library has:
@article{368289,
author = {Peter B. Sheridan},
title = {The arithmetic translator-compiler of the IBM FORTRAN
automatic coding system},
journal = {Commun. ACM},
volume = {2},
number = {2},
year = {1959},
issn = {0001-0782},
pages = {9--21},
doi = {http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/368280.368289},
publisher = {ACM Press},
address = {New York, NY, USA},
}
Which includes the following Fortran expression, in fully parenthesized
form:
(((A + B) - C)/((D * (E + F)/G) - H + J)).
Patricia
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Singer
science forum beginner
Joined: 19 May 2006
Posts: 2
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 3:23 pm Post subject:
Re: Discussion of Infix KIF on Stanford logic site
|
|
|
Jan Burse wrote:
| Quote: | FORTRAN = FORmel TRANslator
|
It's actually FORmula TRANslation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gene E. Bloch
science forum beginner
Joined: 19 May 2006
Posts: 2
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 5:35 pm Post subject:
Re: Discussion of Infix KIF on Stanford logic site
|
|
|
On 5/18/2006, Patricia Shanahan posted this:
| Quote: | Gene E. Bloch wrote:
...
I was surprised by Patricia Shanahan's remark that the early FORTRAN was an
infix lagnuage. I only go back to FORTRAN II, and I haven't used it for a
long time. Maybe that's why I don't think of it as an infix language.
Or does the word mean somthing else in computer science, compared to the
linguistic definition (which is all I know)?
I meant in the computer science sense. The Wikepedia page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infix gives both definitions.
In the sense I meant it, which may be the relevant one for the
distinction between a prefix and infix version of a formal language, it
means having operators placed between their operands, rather than
preceding or following their operands.
For example: + a b might be the representation of addition of a and b in
a prefix languages, corresponding to a+b in an infix language. a+b can
then be treated as a unit for subsequent operations.
Productions like
logsent ::= ~sentence
sentence & sentence |
sentence | sentence |
sentence => sentence |
sentence <= sentence |
sentence <=> sentence
are just the sort of thing I would expect to see in a grammar for an
infix language in the computer science sense.
As far as Fortran is concerned, I don't have any really early
references. However, the ACM digital library has:
@article{368289,
author = {Peter B. Sheridan},
title = {The arithmetic translator-compiler of the IBM FORTRAN automatic
coding system},
journal = {Commun. ACM},
volume = {2},
number = {2},
year = {1959},
issn = {0001-0782},
pages = {9--21},
doi = {http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/368280.368289},
publisher = {ACM Press},
address = {New York, NY, USA},
}
Which includes the following Fortran expression, in fully parenthesized
form:
(((A + B) - C)/((D * (E + F)/G) - H + J)).
Patricia
|
Thanks for the explanation and the link. I am wiser and *not* sadder.
As for the other posters' decoding of FORTRAN, my only comment is that
every time I type the word I have to decide once again whether to type
FORTRAN or Fortran  I don't always make the same decision...
Gino
--
Gene E. Bloch (Gino)
letters617blochg3251
(replace the numbers by "at" and "dotcom") |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Singer
science forum beginner
Joined: 19 May 2006
Posts: 2
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 6:16 pm Post subject:
Re: Discussion of Infix KIF on Stanford logic site
|
|
|
Gene E. Bloch wrote:
| Quote: |
As for the other posters' decoding of FORTRAN, my only comment is that
every time I type the word I have to decide once again whether to type
FORTRAN or Fortran I don't always make the same decision...
|
FORTRAN is the old name. It is now Fortran - I think it changed with Fortran
90, but I'm not sure. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Moylan
science forum beginner
Joined: 20 May 2006
Posts: 2
|
| Posted: Sat May 20, 2006 8:04 am Post subject:
Re: Discussion of Infix KIF on Stanford logic site
|
|
|
Singer wrote:
| Quote: | Gene E. Bloch wrote:
As for the other posters' decoding of FORTRAN, my only comment is
that every time I type the word I have to decide once again whether
to type FORTRAN or Fortran I don't always make the same
decision...
FORTRAN is the old name. It is now Fortran - I think it changed with
Fortran 90, but I'm not sure.
|
For me it will forever remain FORTRAN, because you couldn't do lower
case on the card punches back in the FORTRAN/COBOL era.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain
eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer
reliably receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses.
The optusnet address still has about 3 months of life left. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nightingale
science forum beginner
Joined: 20 May 2006
Posts: 1
|
| Posted: Sat May 20, 2006 5:06 pm Post subject:
Re: Discussion of Infix KIF on Stanford logic site
|
|
|
Peter Moylan wrote:
| Quote: | Singer wrote:
Gene E. Bloch wrote:
As for the other posters' decoding of FORTRAN, my only comment is
that every time I type the word I have to decide once again whether
to type FORTRAN or Fortran I don't always make the same
decision...
FORTRAN is the old name. It is now Fortran - I think it changed with
Fortran 90, but I'm not sure.
For me it will forever remain FORTRAN, because you couldn't do lower
case on the card punches back in the FORTRAN/COBOL era.
|
The world has changed since then, and so have all the programing languages,
including Fortran. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Google
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
The time now is Thu Jan 08, 2009 9:18 pm | All times are GMT
|
|
Problem Mortgage | Personal Car Finance | Online Advertising | Loans | Mortgage
|
|
Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
|
|
Other DeniX Solutions sites:
Electronics forum |
Medicine forum |
Unix/Linux blog |
Unix/Linux documentation |
Unix/Linux forums
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Forum index
»
Science and Technology
»
Math
