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

> Bottom line: the section on intended models clearly relates only to
> some dialect(s) of RIF.  That should at least be made clear in the
> document.

It is made clear that this refers to all dialects. Classical logic is a
special case where all models are intended (and it is stated in that very
section).

> P.S.  Appeals to authority, putting words in someone's mouth,
> statements as to what most "real" so-and-so's think, and innuendos, do
> not amount to valid arguments for anything.  That is something one
> learns in elementary logic under the rubric "Informal Fallacies of
> Reasoning."  

I didn't appeal to authorities. I was hoping that you would take my word
for it (even though I am not a logician).


	--michael  


> -----Original Message-----
> From: kifer@cs.sunysb.edu [mailto:kifer@cs.sunysb.edu] 
> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 6:15 PM
> To: Ginsberg, Allen
> Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org
> Subject: 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 Tuesday, 13 February 2007 00:53:22 UTC