[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 23:36:19 -0600
Message-id: <p06230911c3b0a2c230f1@[]>
At 10:57 PM +0100 1/13/08, Wacek Kusnierczyk wrote:
>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.    (01)

Well, the idea here is that we are doing temporal 
relativity by using the temporal context, right? 
So to say that P is true at t, we say (ist t P). 
OK, now, can there possibly be a time at which 
the sentence    (02)

(Pat in Mississippi) & (Pat in Kentucky)    (03)

is true? It seems clear that there can't be, 
because I can't be in two places at once. So    (04)

(ist t ((Pat in Mississippi) & (Pat in Kentucky)))    (05)

is like  (ist t False).    (06)

It just can't be true.    (07)

>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?    (08)

Well, we are making intuitive judgements here, 
and making the formal system conform to them, is 
the idea.    (09)

>  After all, the second sentence does not seem to say that
>on that day Pat was in Mississipi and Kentucky *at the same moment*    (010)

It says they are both true in the same interval.    (011)

>;  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.    (012)

No, that is what the first sentence says.    (013)

Pat    (014)

>  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?
>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
>    (015)

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    (016)

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    (017)

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