Re: [ontolog-forum] Thing and Class

["Richard H. McCullough" <rhm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

John

 

Your remarks about modal logic remind me of some features

of mKR which I tend to forget about, because I don't use them

very often.

 

mKR vocabulary includes "can".  Compare

    I do walk done;

    I can walk done;

 

mKR contexts include what people say.  Compare

    John has happy;

    Dick do say od {John has happy;} done;

The latter statement creates a new context say_Dick

which contains the embedded statement.

 

Dick McCullough
Ayn Rand do speak od mKR done;
mKE do enhance od Real Intelligence done;
knowledge := man do identify od existent done;
knowledge haspart proposition list;
http://mKRmKE.org/

----- Original Message -----

From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2008 6:53 AM

Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Thing and Class

> Dear Matthew,
> 
> Just a few 
clarifications:
> 
> [MW] I prefer not to use modal logic.
> 
> Since I am working on computational linguistics, I need some
> 
way of translating the words "can" and "must" into some
> logical 
representation.  But to do the reasoning, I prefer
> to work with the 
explicit laws (constraints) and facts (data)
> using some version of 
first-order logic.
> 
> JFS>> Most AI work with "possible 
worlds" is actually based on
> >> metalevel reasoning about 
sets of propositions that describe
> >> those worlds, not with 
the worlds themselves.
> 
> [MW] Actually, I am more interested in 
populating those worlds with
> actual plans, than I am with reasoning, and 
then tracking how well
> they match to reality.
> 
> Most of 
the plans we develop or use aren't in those worlds.  They're
> in the 
world we live in (or in our computers, which are also in our
> world), but 
they refer to hypothetical things in those worlds.
> 
> 
JFS>>  Nobody actually implements "possible worlds".
> 
> 
[MW] What do you mean by this?  For example, I expect to have an
> 
object that represents a particular possible world (well more properly
> a 
universe) for all the time that it exists, and then to have objects
> in 
the world as spatio-temporal parts of it. How does this fit with
> what 
you mean?
> 
> What I meant is that we don't build physical 
replicas.  We might
> have physical signs, such as a marks on paper 
or in a computer,
> that refer to those worlds and hypothetical things in 
them.
> Our reasoning and computation manipulate those marks in 
order
> to draw conclusions about what could, would, or should 
happen
> in those hypothetical worlds.
> 
> John
> 
> 
> 
_________________________________________________________________
> 
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
> 
> 
>
_________________________________________________________________
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)