Executable Archaeology: Reanimating the Logic Theorist from its IPL-V Source

Early AI programs were often also theories of how people think, and programs that wrote programs were, in part, theories of how people program. Here we report on the reanimation of two such programs that offer two seemingly different theories of programming and were developed for quite different purposes. The first, Herbert Simon's Heuristic Compiler (1961), was an experimental model of programming as problem-solving, applying the means-ends analysis methods of the General Problem Solver to investigate the nature of the programming task. The second, KBEmacs (1984), was a working prototype of an intelligent programming assistant developed by MIT's Programmer's Apprentice project, built on the view that expert programmers recognize and combine familiar patterns, or "cliches." It let a programmer build up programs by combining cliches through a stylized English command language. We approach both through the methodology of Executable Archaeology, the study of historical computational systems by running their original code, a process we call "reanimation." Our reanimation of the Heuristic Compiler reproduces the compiled code appearing in Simon's 1963 paper, and our reanimation of KBEmacs reproduces the SQRT sequence of its December 1984 self-test. Examined side by side, the two theories turn out to have much in common: the Heuristic Compiler also works by adapting existing routines, and Simon later argued that search alone requires a large body of programming knowledge. To highlight the reflexivity of this project, we deliberately used a modern AI-assisted programming tool, Anthropic's Claude Code (Opus 5.5), to carry out much of the detailed reanimation work, building on a significant base of existing software. The explicit, executable theories of programming that both systems embodied are largely absent from today's far more capable AI coding assistants.

Ninety-Nine Prolog Problems (P-99) is a famous set of Prolog exercises. We solved the first thirty three just by prompting an LLM (Large Language Model). We used Claude from Anthropic. By solved we mean: generate the Prolog code and a test file, run the tests and check whether they pass, then formally prove types, groundness, termination, uniqueness, existence and also sometimes functional correctness with LPTP (Logic Program Theorem Prover). Hence our approach is an experiment in vibe-coding/vericoding of P-99. It is a vibe-coding experiment because we started from informal specifications written in English and let Claude generate the Prolog code. It also fits within vericoding because the LLM proved reliability guarantees on the generated Prolog code. Claude wrote 58 logic procedures, 508 tests, 257 lemmas for a total of 11800 proof lines. We manually checked each file generated by the LLM. We checked the Prolog code, ran the tests, examined the logical statements generated by Claude and proof-checked Claude's proofs with LPTP. This paper describes this experiment and provides the main details so that it can be reproduced by the interested reader.

We present the interactions with an LLM (Large Language Model) aiming at proving that the square root of 2 is not a rational number in an LP (Logic Programming) context. We start from a few basic pure logic programming predicate definitions. We rely on the LPTP (Logic Program Theorem Prover) system for stating and proving properties about logic programs. As the proof language of LPTP is based on natural deduction, the proofs are human readable. In our case study, we sketch in LPTP the usual proof showing the irrationality of the square root of 2. Then we describe the interactions we had with the LLM. We end up with a complete formal proof, partially generated by an LLM and fully proof-checked by LPTP.