[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontological Assumptions of FOL

To: paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 14:25:51 -0500
Message-id: <45FD923F.6090608@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Paola,    (01)

That would be useful:    (02)

> if your analysis is right, then there will be no problem in using CLCE
> in chinese, which is what triggered this inquiry in the first place
> I think we may want to start to work on some experiments using CLCE
> with different languages, this should provide some proof that logic is
> logic in any language     (03)

But I would just add that the "E" in CLCE stands for English.    (04)

We should consider CLCC for Chinese, CLCJ for Japanese,
CLCS for Spanish, etc.    (05)

 > Let me clarify that by 'chinese logic' I intend traditional,
 > classic chinese logic as contained in original texts, and
 > not communist or westernised logic    (06)

The "logic" in any book of any kind is somebody's theory
about how people can, do, or should reason.  Nobody really
has a good theory about how people actually reason.  That's
still a major research question.    (07)

 > I make my first trip to China.    (08)

Have a good trip,    (09)

John    (010)

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (011)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>