- From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
- Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 11:56:46 -0700
- 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 UTC