On Tue, 2010-01-19 at 17:04 -0500, John F. Sowa wrote:
> 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/
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)