Waclaw Kusnierczyk wrote: (01)
... I guess that (02)
(ist TemporalContextDay06-16-2006 (that (Dead Osama-Bin-Laden))) (03)
should be read as (formatted for clarity): (04)
the proposition which corresponds
in the context TemporalContextDay06-16-2006
to the sentence (Dead Osama-Bin-Laden)
is true (05)
rather than as (06)
the proposition which corresponds
to the sentence (Dead Osama-Bin-Laden)
is true
in the context TemporalContextDay06-16-2006 (07)
This would make sense in the light of the preceding discussion. (08)
Further in the IKL Guide, I find axioms such as (09)
(forall (c)(iff (A-clear c)
(forall (p ...) (iff
(ist c (AND p ...)))
(and (ist c p)(ist c (AND ...)))
))
)) (010)
where 'p' is used to refer to propositions, not sentences, yet there
still is context-dependence. (011)
While (012)
(ist c (that s)) (013)
could be read as above, to assure that it is the sentence, not the
proposition that is context-dependent, how should (014)
(ist c p) (015)
be read? (016)
vQ (017)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (018)
|