Chris, (01)
I'm not suggesting that everyone should use Nand logic, just reminding you
that restricting any choice of expression, even by recommending one over the
other, is inherently a bias that leads to problems eventually. Why pick
either one unless it's for a specific task, chosen for a specific person's
utility in carrying out that task? (02)
-Rich (03)
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2 (04)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Christopher
Menzel
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 12:13 PM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Re Foundation ontology, CYC, and Mapping (05)
On Mar 30, 2010, at 1:49 PM, Rich Cooper wrote:
> Chris and John,
>
> Actually, Nand and Nor logic is no more complex than And and Or logic, in
my
> opinion. I used it extensively in digital circuit design once upon a time
> and never noticed any inconvenience or confusion at all. (06)
No one claimed that Nand and Nor are confusing or that there couldn't be
contexts where it would be more convenient to use them. (07)
> In fact, I consider it actually simpler, because And functions are
> intuitively there to detect conjoint conditions in which, when detected,
you
> want to remove from the inputs of the logic function that is inhibited by
> the Nand gate. (08)
Noted. (09)
> Using Karnaugh maps, or Yates transforms, or algebraic simplification for
> balancing evidence, is every bit as easy, clear and intuitive in Nand/Nor
as
> in And/Or, IMHO.
>
> Popper says that a falsifiable theory must have at least one ground case
> that is detected (usually defined as And conditions) to falsify the
theory.
> Alternatively, a variable that ranges over a specific set of ground cases
> suffices for the same action. Whether that is implemented in Nand/Nor or
> And/Or is immaterial. Note that And/Or gates are electronically more
> complex, with more circuitry actually REQUIRED, than for Nand and Nor
gates. (010)
Sure, but none of this is to the point. Of course one can come up with
examples of contexts in which Nand or Nor would be theoretically or
practically more useful or convenient than using the more common boolean
connectives. The issue is the appropriate language for writing most
ontologies by most knowledge engineers in most contexts. It is simply a
greater conceptual challenge to master and work exclusively to work with
Nand and Nor than with and, or, and not. It would be, frankly, ridiculous
to require ontology writers generally, e.g., to have to conceptualize (not
A) as (nand A A). (011)
-chris (012)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (013)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (014)
|