Pat Hayes wrote:
>> Pat Hayes wrote:
>>
>>>>> (forall (c)(ist c (that (rains))))
>>>>> In IKL, a relation with no arguments is itself a proposition, so
>>>>> one could write it without the "that":
>>>>>
>>>>> (forall (c)(ist c rains))
>>>>
>>>> Just a syntactic feature?
>>>
>>> Yes, essentially. It is way that the use/mention distinction applied
>>> to propositions comes out in the IKL syntax.
>>
>> So if
>> (that (rains))
>>
>> is equivalent to
>> rains
>>
>> , is
>> (that (dead osama))
>>
>> equivalent to
>>
>> "dead osama"
>> ?
>
> I guess it might be if that last expression were legal IKL syntax, but
> it isn't. You can only get away with this trick when the relation has no
> arguments. (01)
Why would this not be syntactically legal? You do use quotes to delimit
names that include spaces, right? "osama bin laden" is legal syntax,
and "dead osama" is not?? (02)
The problem I see is that IKL could not consider (that (dead osama))
equivalent to the (syntactically legal!) "dead osama" because the latter
is understood as an atomic name, so it would not be parsed into "dead"
and "osama". But you can well say (03)
(= "dead osama" (that (dead osama))) (04)
, can't you? (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)
|