On Feb 4, 2010, at 11:32 AM, Duane Nickull wrote:
> ...I remember writing equations using the membership operator (the one that
>looks like a rounded “E”). Is this symbol representative of the same type
>of membership? (01)
∈ is the usual symbol for membership in set theory. (02)
> For example, please see the attached diagram to tell me if it makes sense. (03)
That works fine as long as you've defined ⊕ explicitly as exclusive
disjunction: (01)
p ⊕ q =def (p ∨ q) ∧ ¬(p ∧ q) (02)
In case anyone's mailer doesn't do unicode: (03)
latex-image-1.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
> I tried to express that “x” is a member of either “P” or “S” but cannot be a
>member of both. Is there a better way to write this in KIF? (01)
Better? No, it's an just alternative way to write things in first-order logic.
In KIF (better, CLIF, which has superseded KIF) you would just write exactly
what you just said: (02)
(and (or (memberOf x P) (memberOf x S))
(not (and (memberOf x P) (memberOf x S)))) (03)
Alternatively, if you have union and intersection set operators available to
you: (04)
(and (memberOf x (union P S))
(not (memberOf x (intersection P S)))) (05)
And, of course, you can also define an exclusive disjunction operator "xor" as
above and then simply write in CLIF what you formalized above: (06)
(xor (memberOf x P) (memberOf x S)) (07)
-chris (08)
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|