> >> >> "A more formal specification of the meaning is given in the model theory" >> I don't recall this point being explicitly addressed by the MT; would it >> be more accurate to say "... given by the model theory"? > >Fine with me. Once again, the model theory doesn't talk explicitly >about class cycles either, if I remember correctly. What it does do it >define what classes and properties (or rather, their extensions!) are >made up of. >Inferring what a cycle means is left as an exercise for the reader. Right, although now we have decided that cycles are legal, it might be helpful to insert a remark to the effect that a subClassOf cycle (obviously :) implies that the classes in it are equal. I resisted the temptation to do this while there was the possibility that we might keep them illegal. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayesReceived on Friday, 28 September 2001 00:09:16 EDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:39:51 EDT