John and The List, (01)
Don't make it back to Ontolog much these days, but when I do there
seem to be one or two good threads. Good to see. Among them one from
late last year entitled "new logic" in which it seemed Paola was
trying to generate some discussion on "limitations of logic" for
knowledge representation (an expression subject to dispute in an
earlier thread if I recall.) (02)
The thread never took off because Paola's presentation of the problem
was disputed. In particular that: (03)
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Paola Di Maio wrote:
> ...
> JSowa, and others, say that there is only one type of logic, FOL (04)
The date is after Paola's, but perhaps what caused Paola to say this
was something like the statement below: (05)
John Sowa Ontolog 11/21/09 wrote: (06)
"In fact, every program on every digital computer can be described in
FOL. Most aren't, but the machine itself and everything that runs on
it can, in principle, be defined in FOL." (07)
This does seem a very strong statement. (08)
What do you mean by "described" here? Is it not true that a lot of
what we might regard as "meaningful" about some programs, such as
whether they will ever halt, will escape any such description? (09)
-Rob Freeman (010)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (011)
|