W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > March 2011

Re: Blank nodes, "leaning", and the LEM

From: Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 14:35:59 -0400
Message-ID: <20110324.143559.1557192653692807900.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: <phayes@ihmc.us>
CC: <dev@mobileink.com>, <david@dbooth.org>, <semantic-web@w3.org>
From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Subject: Re: Blank nodes, "leaning", and the LEM
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 13:33:27 -0500

> 
> On Mar 24, 2011, at 1:07 PM, Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 
>> From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
>> Subject: Re: Blank nodes, "leaning", and the LEM
>> Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 12:57:37 -0500
>> 
>> [...]
>> 
>>> In a word, no. Modern logic is extensional. There have been many
>>> approaches to an exact analysis of intensions (in Frege's sense and
>>> many other senses.) This is a huge area with no clear consensus even
>>> on the right approach, let alone a single widely accepted mechanism or
>>> logic. It is completely out of scope for mechanization or the semantic web. 
>> 
>> What, isn't Montague logic the obvious solution here?   ;-)
>> 
>> [..]
>> 
>>> Pat
>> 
>> peter
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> PS: Just to be extra clear (as opposed to the last time when I didn't
>> even put in a smiley) Montague logic is definitely not a good target for
>> mechanisation.
> 
> Well, I have found this old manuscript on some yellowing paper hidden
> under a stone, which may be the solution to all our problems. Does
> anyone on the mailing list read Sanskrit? 
> 
> Pat

I'll ask my wife.  :-)

peter
Received on Thursday, 24 March 2011 18:36:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:48:24 UTC