[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Conjunction and Disjunction

To: "'Pat Hayes'" <phayes@xxxxxxx>, "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Rich Cooper" <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 10:06:42 -0700
Message-id: <20090710170833.25049138D12@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

I (RC) wrote



Given two statements detected by the sensors, there is absolutely no reason to choose AND over OR as the interpretation. 


Pat Hayes wrote:

Wrong. The choice here is determined by the TRUTH CONDITIONS on the use of the words 'and' and 'or'. not by anything to do with the observations themselves. P AND Q means that both of P and Q are true. You say this yourself, above, when you say that ".. detected Paul at the water fountain, and Wanda at the water fountain.." Notice the 'and' in there. To repeat, this has nothing whatever to do with any kind of 'connection' between the P and the Q. They can be utterly unrelated to one another in any way at all: still, the truth conditions on (P and Q) are different from those for (P or Q)


Pat Hayes


Perhaps you are trying to say that the product of all observations is true, therefore:


S[0]^S[1]^…^S[N] = True. 


So you are assuming all observations are valid consistent and true statements?







Rich Cooper


Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com

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    (01)

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