Ed Barkmeyer wrote: (01)
Rich Cooper wrote: (02)
> HERE IS THE IMPORTANT PART:
> Given two statements detected by the sensors, there is absolutely no
> reason to choose AND over OR as the interpretation. (03)
I sure hope Rich isn't in the business of building automata. Consider a
security system with two sensors, one of which notices whether there is
a person in a restricted area, and the other notices whether there is an
authorized personnel badge in the same restricted area. (04)
I want the security rule to read:
IF person detected AND NOT badge detected, THEN Sound Alarm. (05)
By comparison:
IF person detected OR NOT badge detected, THEN Sound Alarm
will probably produce continuous cacophony. ;-) (06)
So, yes, there is absolutely a very strong reason to choose AND over OR
in interpreting the sensor input. (07)
-Ed (08)
P.S. With apologies to Rich, this strikes me as an excellent candidate
for Hatlo's Inferno. (for those of you old enough to remember) ;-) (09)
--
Edward J. Barkmeyer Email: edbark@xxxxxxxx
National Institute of Standards & Technology
Manufacturing Systems Integration Division
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263 Tel: +1 301-975-3528
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263 FAX: +1 301-975-4694 (010)
I don't recall Hatlo's Inferno Ed; that was before my time. I'm only 64.
You must be one of the "greatest generation"! (011)
But do you think the alarm should only ring if the burglar comes in both the
living room and the kitchen window (AND) at the same time? Think again lad! (012)
In jest,
-Rich (013)
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com (014)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (015)
|