|To:||"[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>|
|From:||Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:06:29 -0600|
At 6:05 PM -0500 1/15/08, John F. Sowa wrote:
Oh come, that is too strong. I don't think all the other notions are incoherent. I just think they have virtually nothing in common.
And a related syntactic notion appears in the literature of
Well, thanks for muddying the water even further, I didn't think that was possible :-) This seems to be yet another notion of 'context'.
Just say, a way to name propositions. Yes, we need that. But the idea of a proposition being a "context" of something isn't needed anywhere, as far as I can tell. In the McCarthy/Guha logic, its the other way round: the proposition is itself true "in" a context.
How can there be a theory of things that nobody can say what they are?? Or on which everyone disagrees about what they are? What use is such a theory, when it is not required for either conceptual or linguistic analysis, and when all the logics that have been devised to describe it are less expressive than a non-contextual logic?
For example, if somebody says
WHAT context? That is a perfectly ordinary English sentence, and it refers to Bill, Sue, promising, and a proposition or sentence p. It does not mention contexts and it does not need any reference to contexts in order to be parsed or analyzed. Why do you them immediately start talking about contexts?
would contain the statement of p, it would be
specify the relationships.
The logical analysis of this sentence is that a promising relation holds between Bob, Sue and a sentence or proposition, the content of the promise. Or maybe a bunch of relations between an act of promising and Bob, Sue and a sentence or proposition. But I don't see any place in there for anything that anyone would call a 'context', or any need to even mention contexts.
theories that people have called "context theories".
I'll only be interested in such theories when I actually see one. I havn't seen one yet, in spite of over a decade of metatheory and philosophizing about the general topic, five workshops, dozens of technical papers, at least 4 formal logics, etc. etc..
40 South Alcaniz St.
_________________________________________________________________ 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 (01)
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:|
|Next by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Scheduling a Discussion [was: CL, CG, IKL and the relationship between symbols in the logical "universe of discourse" and individuals in the "real world"], Mills Davis|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Scheduling a Discussion [was: CL, CG, IKL and the relationship between symbols in the logical "universe of discourse" and individuals in the "real world"], Wacek Kusnierczyk|
|Next by Thread:|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|