- From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
- Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 11:21:27 -0700
- To: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
- CC: pfps@research.bell-labs.com, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote: >I just don't see how it is possible to reconcile the two views >that (a) ambiguity of denotation is bad and should be avoided, >eliminated, fixed and (b) ambiguity of denotation is fine and >acceptable. > Ambiguity of denotion is bad relative to what? Now I agree it is bad relative to binary logic ... in fact I believe that binary logic cannot cope with that ambiguity ... am I correct in that belief? But such ambiguity is not necessarily bad relative to 3 state logic where the third state is interperted as "Surprise" or "Error" and that state tells us that the law of the excluded middle cannot be applied in the current context. Is 3 state logic not a possible way out of this morass ? http://robustai.net/mentography/3laws.jpg Seth Russell
Received on Thursday, 10 April 2003 14:21:51 UTC