Re: [ontolog-forum] new logic

[Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Rob
thanks for following up

you found the quote I was referring to, where? (url)

(I am pretty sure I remembered correctly, some parts of my memory work surprisingly well given the general soup in there, and despite the lack of otherwise list memory, which is even worse than the lack of organisational memory)

I like remembering small details

Its good to know that I am not completely off the wall as yet (unless proven otherwise)

I must stress that I do not inted to pick /characterise Johns knowledge (or Pat's anybody elses) on a subject
we all say things that out of context or in a different contextual frame may not make as much sense as intended.

I was trying to bring some contrasting views to the general take on the subject on this list that seem to 
portray rather monotonic views of the world at least on certain topics (like logic) at times

We all learn from John, and from each other, and nobody is  ' always right ' (sometimes only because we dont manage to 
formulate or communicate effectively what we are trying to say)

John already clarified in a subsequent post what he meant with the sentence below, or other similar assertions
not sure if under this exact thread or related, he asked to be quoted with a slightly different wording on the issue

Perhaps you can look up the other statements he followed and raise your comments/ questions in relation to that as well?

You mailed me offlist some comments another post you found, will have to get back to that

thanks

PDM

On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 7:36 AM, Rob Freeman <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

John and The List,

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.)

The thread never took off because Paola's presentation of the problem
was disputed. In particular that:

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

The date is after Paola's, but perhaps what caused Paola to say this
was something like the statement below:

John Sowa Ontolog 11/21/09 wrote:

"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."

This does seem a very strong statement.

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?

-Rob Freeman

-- 
Paola Di Maio
**************************************************
“Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere.”
Albert Einstein
**************************************************

_________________________________________________________________
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)