ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

[ontolog-forum] formal systems, common logic and lbase

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 12:21:41 +0700
Message-id: <c09b00eb0711212121t409308f4web5068358420364d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi Pat    (01)

thanks for bringing this up    (02)

It think CL could be very useful as KR for  NLP applications    (03)

The facts that you have developed the spec and never thought of all
possible applications of CL are not mutually exclusive from my point
of view    (04)

Welty indeed confirmed that there is not work done in this area
that he knows of - but unlike you he did not rule out the possibility
of further investigation
(part of his lessons learned, I guess, never say never)    (05)

I will send you a copy of the paper    (06)

cheers
PDM    (07)



On Nov 22, 2007 9:23 AM, Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >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,
>
> 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.
>
> 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.)
>
> Pat Hayes
>
> 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.
>
>
> >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
> >
>
>
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
>    (08)



--    (09)

Paola Di Maio
School of IT
www.mfu.ac.th
*********************************************    (010)



-- 
Paola Di Maio
School of IT
www.mfu.ac.th
*********************************************    (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)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>