[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Scheduling a Discussion [was: CL, CG, IKL and the re

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Wacek Kusnierczyk <Waclaw.Marcin.Kusnierczyk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 22:57:32 +0100
Message-id: <478A894C.9090805@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Pat Hayes wrote:
> McCarthy claims that and-distribution applies to both:
> (ist c  (p & q)) iff ( (ist c p) & (ist c q) )
> but there are certainly some cases of 
> time-context where this fails, eg there was one 
> day last year when I was (at various times) in 
> five states, but I have never been in five states 
> all at once. So apparently
> (ist thatDay (Pat in Mississippi)) & (ist thatDay (Pat in Kentucky))
> but not
> (ist thatDay ((Pat in Mississippi) & (Pat in Kentucky)))
Risking to be (rightfully) judged naive, I admit I don't see how 
apparent it is that the second sentence is false.  When you explain what 
*you mean* by that, it's obvious.  But, not knowing the semantics of the 
particular language used (is it IKL, or some context logic?), how can 
one be sure?  After all, the second sentence does not seem to say that 
on that day Pat was in Mississipi and Kentucky *at the same moment*;  it 
just says that at that day Pat was in M and (this 'and' does not imply 
temporal simultaneity, does it?) he was in K.  I just do not see any 
additional constraint here that would make the second sentence false 
with the first being true.  Or does the semantics of the language add 
such a constraint here?    (01)

vQ    (02)

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    (03)

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