RE: Reification

Undeniably good argument in favour of having the exact meaning/standard
somewhere, but why can't the standard be left in Paris (or Greenwich), and
our machines have their own metre rules for day to day use?

---
Danny Ayers
http://www.isacat.net

<- -----Original Message-----
<- From: pat hayes [mailto:phayes@ai.uwf.edu]
<- Sent: 09 April 2001 23:17
<- To: Danny Ayers
<- Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
<- Subject: RE: Reification
<-
<-
<- >
<- >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 15:42:53 UTC