- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 15:24:18 -0500
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
I didnt notice this: >Perhaps another possible confusion is around existence: if I describe >to you that x is a blue Honda Civic with license plate 9948JI , does >that mean that such a car exists? (I think not.) Well, in normal logic, it wouldnt make sense to say that ?x is anything, since that would have a free variable. You would need to bind the variable with a quantifier. If you were to say that (exists (?x)((blue-Honda-Civic ?x) & (Licence-plate ?x '9948JI)) then yes, you would be saying that a thing exists that satisfied the statement. Same if you were to assert that (blue-Honda-Civic A) & (Licence-plate A '9948JI) where 'A' is a unique name (skolem constant). However, there are versions of logic where the use of the name wouldnt assert the existence ("free logics"). They were designed to let you talk about unicorns, Santa, etc., and there are all kinds of variations on this theme. Sounds like you would be happier with a free logic. An alternative is to just say that 'exists' means a kind of mathematical existence as a kind of possibility, and have a predicate ("isReal" or some such) to assert that the thing really, actually, exists. But then you have to make sure that you use this consistently, which tends to get a bit tedious when you have a lot of data about real things. (Jerry Hobbs uses this trick, he has a entire framework where there are 'eventualities' which are scenarios that might possibly be the case, and some of them are 'actualized', so that to say not-P, you assert the actualization of the eventuality of the denial of the eventuality of P.) 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 Friday, 1 June 2001 16:24:30 UTC