Re: ACTION-219: review of CORE (more)

>  
> 
> > You didn't divulged too many details, but if what you are proposing
> makes
> > any sense, then a large number of idiots has been working on the
> problem
> > for 40 years for nothing. This includes John McCarthy, Vladimir
> Lifschitz,
> > Mel Fitting, Ray Reiter, and I just scratched the top of the list.
> 
> > (Sorry for the sarcasm.)
> 
> All I am saying is that logic tells me what follows from what.  If you
> say that "p" follows, in some sense, from "p := not q"  then you are
> not using "not" in the same way as logic does. 


You are identifying logic==first-order-predicate-calculus.
This is a very narrow view. Most people who call themselves "a logician"
won't agree with you.


> I never meant to imply that the people working on these formalizations
> of reasoning (as opposed to logic) are wasting their time - I did say I
> was playing "devil's advocate".  But I don't think those formalisms
> offer the only approach to dealing with these issues.  And it very well
> could be that, in the end, i.e., at the application level, solutions
> based on pragmatics are always  required (or better).


There are already sound solutions that are far better than your pragmatics.


> > > In what sense what you have in mind is more classical than, say, the
> > > stable model semantics?
> > 
> > As far as I understand it, stable model "semantics" is basically a
> > procedural add-on to classical semantics involving an implementation of
> > the closed-world-assumption.  It is, if you will, a way of implementing
> > the assumption that everything that you know nothing about is false.
> > Classical semantics makes no such assumption.
> 
> > Your understanding doesn't come from reading papers on this subject then.
> > Or, if it does then you completely misunderstood these papers.
> 
> That is entirely possible.  I am not an expert on that.  But from what
> I have read (including the Fitting survey you referenced) it does seem
> to be a way of formalizing the closed-world-assumption, and that
> assumption is not consistent with classical semantics, i.e., logic.

Good morning! :-)
Of course this is not classical semantics!
We have been talking about this for months in this group.

But your "i.e., logic" is not shared by logicians. (I am not calling myself
a "logician". I just know something about logic. I mean *real* logicians.)


	--michael

Received on Monday, 12 February 2007 23:15:00 UTC