- From: Danny Ayers <danny@panlanka.net>
- Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 01:39:28 +0600
- To: "pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
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