Jie Bao, Bill, and Pat, (01)
I basically agree with the points that Bill and Pat made,
but I'd like to add some further comments. (02)
BA> CycL is probably best likened to IKL (or without all the
> modalities) to CL. Both are first order logical systems. (03)
PH> [CycL is a] Superset of FOL, I believe. It is FOL with
> a variety of context ("micro-theory") inferences added to it. (04)
Doug Lenat would probably agree with those points. Doug was
not happy with Common Logic because it did not make provision
for supporting statements about propositions. Some Cyclers
participated in the workshops that led to the development of
IKL, and they seemed to be satisfied that IKL is able to
represent the features of CycL. (05)
BA> The Cyc inference engine (AFAIK) still uses a large collection
> of "heuristic level" (HL) modules to compute certain inference
> patterns fast, but falls back to general purpose ATP. Thus,
> while it is efficient for many special cases, it would not be
> in the general case decidable. (06)
Bill doesn't plug his own work as much as I do, and I'd like to
recommend article #2 in the following proceedings: (07)
http://sunsite.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/Publications/CEUR-WS/Vol-10/
Proceedings of CEUR-WS.org/Vol-10 (08)
I discuss this paper and other issues about logic in the following
paper (especially in Sections 5 and 6): (09)
http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/fflogic.htm
Fads and Fallacies about Logic (010)
John (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)
|