[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] new logic

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 17:04:46 -0500
Message-id: <4B562C7E.1040903@xxxxxxxxxxx>
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)

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