>Rick
>thanks for interpreting your thoughts. I am becoming increasingly
>interested in CL, although I am still working out how it relates to
>other formalisms, and how can I use it
>As discussed briefly with Welty last week, it appears obvious to me
>that CL is at core of NLP, (01)
I have no idea what you and Welty were
discussing, but I can assure you that CL has
almost nothing to do with NLP (assuming you mean
by this, Natural Language Processing.) I know
that Welty knows better than to make such a
statement, so I presume you may have
misunderstood him. (02)
CL is really a very limited, technical project: a
version of first-order logic with a very
forgiving syntax and a slightly modified
semantics (modified in order to accommodate the
syntactic freedom), stated as a 'standard' (i.e.
with explicit conformance conditions spelled out)
and allowing for a variety of alternative surface
syntactic forms. The CL ISO documentation gives
three such surface forms in detail, and others
are possible. But these are all just syntactic
variations on first-order logic, all with a
common semantics. First-order logic is not NLP.
(Some very early NLP work assumed that NL is a
'rich' version of a logic, but that idea has been
thoroughly refuted by now. Certainly the
languages that humans actually speak are not
logics, and cannot be fully understood without
taking a large number of non-logical
considerations into account.) (03)
Pat Hayes (04)
PS. In case you feel that I am merely blustering
here, I would point out that I authored the CL
specification (apart from Annex B, which was
written by John Sowa), so I do have something of
an inside view both of what it says and of the
presumptions and ideas on which it is based. (05)
>so I am interested
>in your suggestion as a possible way forward in that direction
>thanks
>PDM
>
>> Given the current structure of CL & LBase, I believe proposition a) is
>> where CL & LBase are now: a natural language description of the
>> constraints to which the axioms of an open ended schematic system would
>> adhere. Proposition b) presumes that we structure a logical environemt
>> as illustrated below.
>>
>> Logical Environment
>> |
>> -----------------------------------------
>> | | | |
>> Languages Logics Models Theories
>> |
>> -----------------
>> | |
>> Axiomatic Natural Language
>> |
>> -------------------
>> | |
>> LBASE Common Logic
>>
>> I believe Feferman's open ended schematic system implies proposition b)
>> and the evolution of formal systems towards logical environments.
>>
>> Rick
>>
>>
>>
>> paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> > Thanks a lot Rick
>> > havent had the chance to read the docs yet, but it sounds like a
>> > fundamental question, although shifts in thinking paradigms may be
>> > unsettling and painful
>> > I do think that CL is going to stimulate the transition from NLP to AI
>> > (so many acronyms)
>> > and I have come to accept the possibility of a passive logical schema
>> > but I am still reading
>> > (and reading and reading)
>> > I am interested in exploring your a) and b) propositions
>> > what happend to this chap Feferman? did he get any traction?
>> > will catch up with the reading and continue with this discussion at
>> > the first opportunity
>> > cheers
>> > PDM
>> >
>> >
>> > On 11/17/07, rick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <rick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> All:
>> >>
>> >> Folks might enjoy the Soloman Feferman lecture Goedel, Nagel, Minds and
> > >> Machines. After recounting an exchange
>between Godel and Nagel circa 1956,
>> >> Feferman describes the implications of the minds vs. machines dichotomy
>> >> ensuing from the exchange. To avoid the
>>impass resulting from the dichotomy,
>> >> Feferman proposes the redefinition of a formal system to an "open ended
>> >> schematic axiomatic system." He claims this
>>redefinition is a constructive
>> >> step towards an "informative, systematic
>>account at a theoretical level of
>> >> how the mathematical mind works that
>>squares with experience." He stresses
>> >> the importance of a subject neutral theory
>>of operations with basic schemata
>> >> for language, arithmetic, set theory that would amount to a version of an
>> >> untyped lambda calculus. Feferman concludes by rejecting any effective
>> >> machine representation of mind as
>>contemplated by Nagel, Penrose & others.
>> >>
>> >> So, what does this mean to Common Logic and
>>LBase ? Seems to me that efforts
>> >> like Common Logic and LBase would either
>>have to a) be defined within this
>> >> type of an open ended system, let's say as
>>the natural language description
>> >> of the constraints to which the axioms that make up the theory of such a
>> >> system would adhere; or b) evolve into an
>>open ended system that exhibits
>> >> characteristics of transformation across languages, logics, models and
>> >> theories.
>> >>
>> >> Rick
>> >>
>> >> _________________________________________________________________
>> >> 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
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
>
>--
>Paola Di Maio
>School of IT
>www.mfu.ac.th
>*********************************************
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>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
> (06)
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 (07)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (08)
|