[Top] [All Lists]

[ontolog-forum] CL and Butterings

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Chris Menzel <cmenzel@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:24:23 -0500 (CDT)
Message-id: <alpine.OSX.1.00.0803181105470.752@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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
> (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)

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