W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > November 2002

Re: Contexts? (again)

From: Richard H. McCullough <rhm@cdepot.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 06:00:17 -0800
Message-ID: <001901c29166$52f8e450$bd7ba8c0@rhm8200>
To: "Miles Sabin" <miles@milessabin.com>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Liar "paradoxes" are solved by considering the context of the statement.
Keith Devlin has a good discussion in his book "Logic and Information".
============ 
Dick McCullough 
knowledge := man do identify od existent done
knowledge haspart list of proposition

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Miles Sabin 
  To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org 
  Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 5:35 AM
  Subject: Re: Contexts? (again)



  Sandro Hawke wrote,
  > My current suggested truth predicate is WellFormedAndTrue, where
  > being well-formed includes being able to be re-written in a
  > truth-preserving manner to a form without negated self-references;
  > this is (as far as I can tell) what KIF3 had, before they took it out
  > as being unnecessary for the intended apps.

  Doesn't this just give us another variant of the liar?

    This statement is not WellFormedAndTrue

  If it's false then it's both true and well-formed. If it's true then 
  it's either false or not well-formed. The only fixed point is "true but 
  not well-formed", and now you have to explain what _that_ means ... 
  seems a little fishy: true, but not rewritable in a truth preserving 
  way to a form without negated self-references?

  Cheers,


  Miles
Received on Thursday, 21 November 2002 09:00:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:57 GMT