|From:||FERENC KOVACS <f.kovacs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Sun, 29 Aug 2010 14:19:05 +0000 (GMT)|
In fact, this below is a quote from Rich,
FK> - an appropriate semantic theory for a language will provide
> notions of *logical truth* and *entailment* that can be used
> to justify the axioms and inference rules that constitute an
> actual reasoning system.
But this time again, without getting any questions I feel that we are repeating ourselves with no sign of understanding. This makes me a bit dissapointed and cheeky.
Like i find that most of the syllogisms are not "fair", because M (object, noun phrase) in a major premise becomes M (property, an adjective) in minor premise, if not explicitely, then implicitly. If it is not so, there still is a trivial relation between M and S and the inheritence of a property is obvious, nothing to write home about.
_________________________________________________________________ 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)
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Semantic Enterprise Architecture - Example ofBed vs Cell and reasoning!, Doug McDavid|
|Next by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Semantic Enterprise Architecture - Example ofBed vs Cell and reasoning!, FERENC KOVACS|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Semantic Enterprise Architecture - Example ofBed vs Cell and reasoning!, FERENC KOVACS|
|Next by Thread:||[ontolog-forum] language and thinking, FERENC KOVACS|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|