Add notes for 8B lecture (SICP)

The implementation on the Logic Programming II of the query
language, rule-based using pattern matching makes assumptions about
earlier codes from old lectures. I just keep a general copy-paste
notes from the videos make my own reasoning.

Is curious case. The NOT from a query rule-based system is
different from the NOT LOGICAL. The closed system doesn't build
all the knowledge possible. The NOT from query is a filter, making
a equivalent procedure for the NOT operation on Set Theory, the
complements of a set.

Hmmm... consistency on a closed world. Maybe is this was the initial
insights with Godel on the Incompletude Theorem?

... Who cares.

README.md

@@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ The actual content are answers and code covering the book [Land of Lisp](http://
  - [x] Lecture 7A 
  - [x] Lecture 7B
  - [x] Lecture 8A 
- - [ ] Lecture 8B
+ - [x] Lecture 8B
  - [ ] Lecture 9A 
  - [ ] Lecture 9B
  - [ ] Lecture 10A

mit-6.001/8B-logic-programming-II.lisp

@@ -0,0 +1,105 @@
+;; Common Lisp Script
+;; Manoel Vilela
+
+;; sample patterns
+
+#|
+
+(a ?x c)
+
+(job ?x (computer ?y))
+
+(job ?x (computer . ?y))
+
+(a ?x ?x)
+
+(?x ?y ?y ?x)
+
+(a . ?x)
+
+|#
+
+;; rule-based system for logic programming using
+;; patter matching
+
+(load "4A-pattern-matching.lisp")
+(match pat data dictionary) ;; needs implements match
+;; in earlier lectures, the primitives for pattern matching
+;; is implemented
+
+;; query black box
+
+;;                 ↓ pattern
+;;                 +-------+
+;;                 |       |
+;; => initial-dict | QUERY | => dictionary
+;;                 |       |
+;;                 +-------+
+;;                     ↑ database stream
+
+
+;; means of combinations: NOT, AND, OR
+
+;; means of abstraction: rules
+
+(rule (boss ?z ?d)
+      (and (job ?x (?d . ?y))
+	   (supervisor (?x ?z))))
+
+
+;; == TO APPLY A RULE
+
+;; Evaluate the rule body relative to an environment
+;; formed by unifying the rule conclusion with the
+;; given query.
+
+
+;; == TO APPLY A PROCEDURE
+
+;; Evaluate the procedure body relative to an enviroment
+;; formed by binding the procedure paramaters to the
+;; to the arguments.
+
+
+;; All humans are mortals
+;; All greeks are humans.
+;; Socrates is greek,
+;;------ syllogism logic ----
+;; :: Socrates is mortal.
+
+
+(Greek Socrates)
+(Greek Plato)
+(Greek Zeus)
+(god Zeus)
+
+(rule (mortal ?x) (human ?x))
+(rule (fallible ?x) (human ?x))
+
+(rule (human ?x)
+      (and (Greek ?x) (not (god ?x))))
+
+(rule (address ?x Olympus)
+      (and (greek ?x) (god ?x)))
+
+(rule (perfect ?x)
+      (and (not (mortal ?x))
+	   (not (fallible ?x))))
+
+(and (address ?x ?y)
+     (perfect ?x)) ;; => Mount Olympus (Zeus)
+
+(and (perfect ?x)
+     (address ?x ?y)) ;; Nothing
+
+
+;; But who is right? We can makes assumption of our
+;; data here about that: Zeus is not mortal, Zeus
+;; is not mortal, just because he is not human?
+;; This is not sufficient information.
+
+;; NOT here is NOT from the logic!
+;; The NOT here is a filter of a closed world,
+;; the complements of a assumption.
+;; Logic makes assumptions of only two states.
+;; This is a big problem.