W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > May 2003

Re: exploring ambiguity via the "something-which-has" URI scheme

From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 11:56:46 -0700
Message-ID: <3EBFEE6E.40506@robustai.net>
To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
CC: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com, sandro@w3.org, GK@ninebynine.org, uri@w3.org

pat hayes wrote:

> You seem to be saying that people can disagree about facts but they 
> have to agree about the objects that the facts are 'about'. That's not 
> a viable distinction to make, though. If you allow them to disagree, 
> then one of the ways they can disagree is about what they are talking 
> about. Suppose for example one of them asserts that A=B and the other 
> one disagrees; he thinks that A=/=B. They can't possibly be agreeing 
> about what they are talking about, since one of them sees two things 
> where the other only sees one thing. Whatever the second guy is 
> talking about, it can't possibly be what the first one was talking 
> about. (Equality is the meat and potatoes of OWL-style reasoning, so 
> this isn't an arcane distinction, it arises all the time. ) 


Well Im glad you said that :)   But  where does that leave us?   It 
seems to me that if you allow that A might_not_= A, then all of your 
classical logic is just stopped dead in its tracks and is utterly 
useless.    I have expressed this perdicament in the mentograph below:

http://robustai.net/mentography/3laws.jpg

Help ?

Seth Russell
Received on Monday, 12 May 2003 14:57:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 January 2011 12:15:31 GMT