[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] new logic

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Christopher Menzel <cmenzel@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 17:38:36 -0600
Message-id: <1263944316.5096.28.camel@new-philebus>
On Tue, 2010-01-19 at 17:04 -0500, John F. Sowa wrote:
> Chris,
> 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?
> JFS>> Those descriptions go beyond the original specification,
>  >> but many of them can also be described in FOL.
> CM> They can *all* be described in FOL.
> I agree that all the formal statements about programs could
> be translated to FOL.  But I was hedging about what Rob might
> consider "meaningful":
> 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.    (01)

Fair enough!    (02)

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    (03)

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