- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 16:30:59 -0400
- To: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
- Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
From: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com Subject: Re: A Single Foundational Logic for the Semantic Web Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 21:47:27 +0200 [...] > Well I didn't follow completely. > I can follow the trouble you get with a *builtin* contradiction > but not when you write a paradox *in* a language. [...] I was being a bit brief in my reasoning. Here is some more detail. To more fully investigate the status of n3 with the log: vocabulary, we need to look at what sorts of things have to exist in all models. A simple analysis shows than every formula has to exist in every model. Otherwise formulae like _:a rdf:type rdf:Statement . _:a rdf:subject ex:s . _:a rdf:predicate ex:p . _:a rdf:object ex:o . _:a log:implies _:a . are not valid, which goes against the intended meaning of log:implies. [From this, and from the intended meaning of this to refer to documents as a whole, every conceivable document has to exist in every model. However, let's try to produce a paradox without reference to documents.] Even formulae like the following have to exist in all models _:b rdf:type rdf:Statement . _:b rdf:subject _:b . _:b rdf:predicate rdf:type . _:b rdf:object n3:falsehood . this is, more-or-less, { this a n3:falsehood } Now does this formula belong to log:Truth? If it does, then it is a true formula, and thus is a falsehood, because it belongs to n3:falsehood, and thus it can't belong to log:Truth. If it does not, then it is a non-true formula, and thus is a truth, because it does not belong to n3:falsehood, and thus it must belong to log:Truth. Thus log:Truth is ill-defined (model theory) or self-inconsistent (truth theory) everything falls apart. Note that this line of reasoning requires lots of assumptions as to the meaning of the various n3: and log: constructs. Note also that it is not necessary to use n3:falsehood---most any contradiction can be embedded in a self-referential formula. peter
Received on Tuesday, 30 April 2002 16:36:58 UTC