On Tue, 18 Mar 2008, Pat Hayes wrote:
>> (1') (Ex)(Event(e) & Buttering(e) & Agent(e,j))
>>
>> and
>>
>> (2') (Ex)(Event(e) & Buttering(e) & Agent(e,j) & Slow(e))
>>
>> respectively, it is obvious that (1') now follows from (2') by simple
>> predicate logic.
>
> I expect you mean to bind e rather than x (01)
Of course. (02)
> You might have pointed out that Common Logic already allows the
> "Harman" constructions without extending the language. This is legal
> CLIF:
>
> (forall ((S HarmanOperator) P x)(if ((S P) x) (P x))) (03)
Indeed it is! I missed a good "teaching moment" there. :-) (04)
> However, for all that, I prefer the Davidson way of writing things:
>
> (forall ((S HarmanOperator) P x)(if
> ((S P) x)
> (exists ((e Event))(and (P e)((Davidize S) e) (agent e x) ))
> )) (05)
I expect that should be the "Davidsonize" operator. :-) Seems to me,
though, that "P" is being used ambiguously here. When I butter the
toast, it seems reasonable to say that there is both a buttering
relation between me and the toast as well as an event that is a
buttering. If so, we don't want a single predicate indicating the
buttering relation and the buttering-event property, but rather two
predicates that are systematically correlated with one another. (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)
|