I still intend to do a translation from mKR to IKL,
but I wanted to state my philosophy re: mKR and English. (02)
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;
----- Original Message -----
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 12:27 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] mKR programming language (04)
> I completely agree with the points that Chris M. and others
> have been making. But I'll try to restate them in a way
> that relates more directly to what you've been saying.
> RHM> I am relying on the "linguistic communities wherein the
> > semantic conventions of English have already been assimilated".
> The semantic conventions of English and other natural languages
> are still open research issues. There is no such thing as a
> standard that has "already been assimilated". The closest thing
> we have are the very many dictionaries of English, no two of
> which are completely consistent with one another (nor even
> with different parts of themselves).
> RHM> I have stated, on my web site, that the meaning of an mKR
> > proposition is defined by the meaning of its English paraphrase.
> That is the problem. Your definitions are too vague to be
> implemented independently by different people in a way that
> will ensure that all implementations are interoperable.
> RHM> I do not consider many pages of mathematical formulas to be
> > an appropriate definition of meaning in mKR.
> None of us are asking for that. There are many ways to specify
> the semantics of mKR formally. Several months ago, I suggested
> the simplest way:
> 1. Define the grammar of mKR in the common EBNF grammar rules
> that are used to state ISO standards. (Or any other common
> notation for grammar rules.)
> 2. For each expression defined by those rules, state a translation
> of that expression to an equivalent expression in some version
> of logic for which all the hard work of defining a semantics
> has been done.
> As a suitable logic for the mKR sentences, I suggested Common Logic,
> which is already an ISO standard. For the views, which seem to
> require some metalevel expressions that go beyond Common Logic,
> I suggested the IKL extensions that add the 'that' operator to
> the CL base logic.
> If you do that, your mKR language becomes a well-defined dialect
> of CL (or IKL). If you don't do that (or something similar with
> any other version of logic you prefer), then you can't expect
> anybody to take your notation seriously.
> It's your choice.
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (06)