Chris, (01)
RB>>> 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? (02)
JFS>> Those descriptions go beyond the original specification,
>> but many of them can also be described in FOL. (03)
CM> They can *all* be described in FOL. (04)
I agree that all the formal statements about programs could
be translated to FOL. But I was hedging about what Rob might
consider "meaningful": (05)
The Windows haiku, for example, could be considered meaningful,
and they could be called descriptions. But I didn't want to
commit to the claim that they could all be translated to FOL. (06)
John (07)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (08)
|