Hi Cameron, (01)
I'm not suggesting that anything change. And traditional KR isn't only
about mathematical logic. It's also about interactive explanation,
patterns, linguistics, perceptions, and many other areas needing improved
automation for knowledge acquisition and rendering. (02)
Limiting expression is every bit as bad an idea as starting with a bad
design and filling it in with good pieces. It's the refusal to use any
specific kind of expression that I am objecting to. Use whatever method
works for you, and if it leads you to novel discoveries, then the whole
world is better off. (03)
Hope that clarifies,
-Rich (04)
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2 (05)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Cameron Ross
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 1:13 PM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Re Foundation ontology, CYC, and Mapping (06)
I agree with Chris. Traditional KR has a heritage of and/or/not. Why
change? Besides, isn't the proliferation ofthe nand/nor approach
rooted in the production efficiencies of gate manufacturing? What's
to gain? (07)
Cameron. (08)
Kojeware Corporation (09)
On Mar 30, 2010, at 3:12 PM, Christopher Menzel <cmenzel@xxxxxxxx>
wrote: (010)
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
>> 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.
>
> Noted.
>
>> 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.
>
> 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).
>
> -chris
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> (011)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (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)
|