ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Thing and Class

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 17:48:13 -0500
Message-id: <1F2DA427-2117-40E6-A3EB-4B3861CBB532@xxxxxxx>

On Sep 14, 2008, at 2:22 AM, John F. Sowa wrote:    (01)

> Pat,
>
> One of the important points that Dunn emphasized is that the language
> in which the laws and facts are stated is a pure FOL without any
> modal operators.    (02)

Yes, I do know Dunn's work.    (03)

>  He assumed a plain vanilla GOFOL, but an extended
> version of FOL such as Common Logic would be equally appropriate.
> I explicitly used the term "model set", which suggested that I was
> assuming the same kind of FOL that Hintikka assumed for his model
> sets. But the method is the same for any version or subset of FOL.
>
> In Section 4 of the worlds.pdf paper (which you said you read), I
> was very explicit about what I meant by the word 'proposition'.    (04)

Sure, but I wasnt certain you were using the same sense in the email.    (05)

>
> I defined a proposition as an equivalence class of sentences
> under a "meaning-preserving translation" (MPT), which I also
> defined explicitly.    (06)

Yes, I'm familiar with  your construction, of course. But now we get  
back to my earlier objection. Propositions, in this sense, might as  
well be sentences: a set of propositions is just a set of sentences  
with an equivalence defined on it.    (07)

> (We had talked about that idea a few years
> ago in connection with the IKRIS project.)  The simplest example
> of a "meaning-preserving translation" is the identity, which
> implies that each syntactically distinct sentence states a
> distinct proposition, but any other MPT would do as well.
>
> In any case, for the purpose of mapping Kripke's semantics to Dunn's,
> the choice of MPT is irrelevant, since you get the same collection
> of theorems and proofs with any choice discussed in that paper.
> For example, you get the same theorems whether you call p&q the
> "same" proposition as q&p or a "different" proposition.    (08)

Indeed, so my point applies in either case. Your mapping as stated  
refers to the set of propositions/sentences, but does not specify  
which set. A Kripke structure does not itself define a particular  
language to interpret against it, so your mapping from Kripke to Dunn  
seems to be under-defined.
>
>
> JFS>> Given a Kripke model (K,R,Phi) and for each world w in K,
>>> let M (a Hintikka-style model set) be the set of propositions
>>> true in w.
>
> PH> Whoa. That set is not yet fully defined. What do you mean by
>> 'proposition'? If you mean 'sentence', you have to say what formal
>> language your sentences are written in, because this is not
>> specified by a Kripke (or any other model-theoretic) structure. If
>> you mean something other than 'sentence', I am all ears to hear
>> what it is that you do mean.
>
> Take your pick.  Just take the modal language you choose for the  
> Kripke
> semantics (some version of FOL with the addition of modal operators),
> then use the base language without the modal operators to state the
> laws and facts for Dunn's semantics.    (09)

That isn't a mapping from Kripke to Dunn. Its a mapping from (Kripke  
plus a choice of modal language) to Dunn. I'm still waiting to hear  
how to map form Kripke to Dunn.    (010)

If you can show a metatheorem to the effect that the essential aspects  
of the translation are independent of the choice of formal language,  
that might be a good first step. But I don't actually think this is  
true.    (011)

Pat    (012)


>
>
> 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
>
>
>    (013)

------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes    (014)






_________________________________________________________________
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)

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