Re: universal languages

> > > [Drew]
> > > What sorts of inferences do we need?
> >
> > [Tim]
> > I am not an expert, so excuse any misuse of terms.
> >
> > There are many related logics, which use different sets of
> > axioms and inference rules, but have the (provable) property
> > that there is a mapping from formulae in one to formulae in
> > another such that one engine cannot infer something
> > which mapped across it false in the other system.
> >

I think this is very important and it can keep us going to use
all kinds of engines to solve ever more complex problems in a
scalable, evolvable, trustful way.
There is no all purpose engine, there are huge tradeoffs with respect
to heuristics, performance, quality of service, etc...

Can we get some evidence about that ...(provable) property ...?

> > The universal language defines this set of logics, if you like.
> > It doesn't define which set of axioms any engine should use.
> > It doesn't define which set of inference rules.
>
> [Pat]
> But Tim, this (literally) doesnt make sense. A specification of a
> logical language *is* a specification of a set of axioms and
> inference rules (or proof-constuction rules, more generally). So what
> do you mean by talking about a language without a language? That's
> like saying you want a universal human interligua without a grammar.

I don't know, I think I don't understand it ...
Pat, can you please re-explain?

--
Jos De Roo, AGFA

[This reminds me about Frege's "Sinn und Bedeutung" or in English
"sense and reference". Sense in the sense of *proof value expressions*
or *thought trail* and references as *URI space points* ...]

Received on Wednesday, 7 February 2001 12:52:47 UTC