[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Christopher Menzel <cmenzel@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 19:44:07 -0600
Message-id: <C875E134-958F-487E-9F69-C0E86EF89E67@xxxxxxxx>
On Nov 25, 2007, at 6:10 PM, rick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> ...
>>> Seems to me that efforts like http://cl.tamu.edu/Common Logic and 
>>>  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.
>> No, neither. Common logic is simply a modernized Net-savvy  
>> restatement of first-order logic, in an attempt to get past the  
>> interoperability problems arising from the huge variety of surface  
>> notations in use.
> But Feferman's talking about openness of language and you're saying  
> surface notation. What's the difference?    (01)

I have no idea what Feferman was talking about, but whatever it was, I  
am quite certain it is irrelevant to CL. CL, as Pat indicates, is an  
answer to a problem -- the difficulty of getting knowledge bases that  
use different notations for (perhaps some fragment of) first-order  
logic to interoperate.  It's an engineering solution to a practical  
problem.  That's it.  There are some cool features to CL, but the idea  
is Not That Deep.    (02)

> I've lumped in non-monotonicity, model theories and axiomatic  
> semantics.    (03)

Into what?  And what does it even mean to say you've lumped together  
(a) a formal property of certain logics (b) all mathematical theories  
of meaning and (c) formal axiomatizations of specific semantic theories?    (04)

>> LBase is (was,better, as it seems to have been widely ignored) an  
>> earlier attempt to do this for the W3C family of semantic web  
>> languages. Goedel's incompleteness result, which gave such a shock  
>> to foundations of mathematics, has no relevance to the completeness  
>> of first-order logic (which was also first proved by Goedel, by the  
>> way.)
> Interesting, thanks for the info, anything you could refer me to so  
> I can read up on this ?    (05)

On LBase as a precursor to Common Logic?  On the incompleteness  
(better, perhaps, incompleteability) of arithmetic?  On the  
completeness of first-order logic?    (06)

-chris    (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)

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