>Pat,
>
>would IKL allow this:
>
>(= p (that (p)))
>
>?
> (01)
Yes indeed. And of course so is this: (02)
(= p (that (not (p))) (03)
although this, unlike your example, is unsatisfiable. (NOT paradoxical :-) (04)
Check out the last section of the IKL spec for a brief comment of
paradoxical patterns in IKL: (05)
http://www.ihmc.us:16080/users/phayes/IKL/SPEC/SPEC.html (06)
we are working (fitfully) on this topic right now. There is a
slideshow of a talk I gave (to a logically unsophisticated audience)
on this general topic here: (07)
http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/paradoxes.html (08)
Pat (09)
>--
>Wacek Kusnierczyk
>
>------------------------------------------------------
>Department of Information and Computer Science (IDI)
>Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)
>Sem Saelandsv. 7-9
>7027 Trondheim
>Norway
>
>tel. 0047 73591875
>fax 0047 73594466
>------------------------------------------------------ (010)
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL 32502 (850)291 0667 cell
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes (011)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (012)
|