- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 12:16:46 -0500
- To: "Danny Ayers" <danny@panlanka.net>
- Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
> >BTW, to my machine (and me) "for y in AD, if <x,y> in IR(?P) and <y,z> in >IR(?P) then <x,z> in IR(?P)" doesn't mean anything more than e.g. "not" >does - where is this meaning exactly? The point is not to give a readable exposition of the meaning, but a mathematically checkable standard. The trouble with just saying "not" is that even logical words can be interpreted in all kinds of ways. Some people take "not p" to mean that p isnt proven, others that p is false, others that they are not asserting p one way or the other, others yet to mean something like "I can give a constructive refutation of any attempt to prove p", others even more yet to mean something like "I can play a game of refute-versus-prove with p and always win it". So just saying "not" leaves the issue open; whereas the model theory settles the issue very exactly. Like the Standard Metre in Paris, it's not intended for daily use, but it does settle any debates about exactly what is what. Pat Hayes --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Monday, 9 April 2001 15:14:39 UTC