- From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
- Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 04:06:12 -0700
- To: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
From: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu> > >Ok, I used the wrong word again. The question I am trying to ask in the > >broadest terms is: What difference will the MT make?. It seems to me that > >the MT is supposed to tell us what a graph ~means~ > > Say 'could mean', then yes. > > >and even provides an > >algorithm to determine that ~meaning~. > > NO! Interpretations need not be computable. (Some of them are, but > that's not the point.) > > > But this ~interpretation thingy~ can > >never be manifested inside a computer (can it?), > > Some can, some can't. Which is where you loose me:( If we are making a theory that the computer can use, then, me thinks, being able to manifest the interpretation of it inside the computer is a *requirement*. Allowing part of the model to be sustainable only by the ideals in a human's mind seems to me to be less useful. But I think there is one simple yet adequate ~model theory~. Define an arc (or even a pencil of them which is an sexpression) down to it's fine detail such that it can be manifested in the computer. Then something is in a model (entailed by it?) iff an arc exists in the model or can be inferred by the interpreter of the model. The interpreter is just a program that operates only on arcs. This is the first rough draft of this idea ... please don't laugh too loud if I've misused some words. Seth Russell
Received on Monday, 15 October 2001 07:06:47 UTC