Pat Hayes wrote:
>> Pat,
>>
>> would IKL allow this:
>>
>> (= p (that (p)))
>>
>> ?
>>
>
> Yes indeed. And of course so is this:
>
> (= p (that (not (p)))
>
> although this, unlike your example, is unsatisfiable. (NOT paradoxical :-)
>
> Check out the last section of the IKL spec for a brief comment of
> paradoxical patterns in IKL:
>
> http://www.ihmc.us:16080/users/phayes/IKL/SPEC/SPEC.html
>
> 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:
>
> http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/paradoxes.html (01)
Great, thanks. (02)
What about this: (03)
(= p (ist p (that (p)))) (04)
? (05)
vQ (06)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (07)
|