[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] web-syllogism-and-worldview

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Christopher Menzel <cmenzel@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 15:39:10 -0500
Message-id: <282D895A-527C-45AB-9D33-3FE8D751C8E6@xxxxxxxx>
On Apr 17, 2009, at 2:36 PM, Christopher Menzel wrote:
>> CM > I am not understanding some of your terminology here.  As
>> standardly
>>> (and pretty much universally) defined in logic, syllogisms are
>>> arguments with two premises and a conclusion satisfying a certain
>>> general form in which the notion of recursion plays no role whatever
>> Sorry Chris, I should have referenced the following threads better:
>> AW >> The problem with the "syllogisms will never work" argument
>>>> is that, if you allow them to be recursive, they have Turing
>>>> machine power.  That means that they can compute anything that
>>>> can be computed.
>> JFS > Every major programming language (e.g., FORTRAN, COBOL, LISP,
>>> ALGOL, PL/I, C, C++, C#, Ada, Java, Python, Ruby, PHP, etc.)
>>> has the following two properties:
>>> 1. They have the power of a Turing machine.
>>> 2. It's undecidable whether an arbitrary program written in
>>>  any of those languages will terminate.
>> My response was to the argument that if we allow syllogisms to be
>> recursive, they will become useless.  JFS's point, I believe, was  
>> that
>> this since programming language constructs are based on turing
>> machines, which are recursive, there's no issue here.
> If I can restate: Your claim was that if, in a logical framework
> capable of expressing syllogisms, syllogisms are allowed to be
> recursive, then the resulting framework will be useless because it
> will have the expressive power of a (universal) Turing machine.
> John's response is that all programming languages have that power and
> are, obviously, useful.  John's response therefore seems to be a
> counterexample to your claim.    (01)

Bart,    (02)

After re-reading Adrian's response and looking at yours again  
*carefully*, I see that I was not reading what you were saying  
correctly.  I thought you were responding to John's argument, not  
Adrian's.  Apologies, my mistake.  I think my other two comments still  
apply, however.    (03)

-chris    (04)

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    (05)

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