On Aug 19, 2011, at 8:14 PM, Simon Spero wrote: (01)
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 5:30 PM, Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I have been taken to task by some very competent logicians for calling CL
>first-order, as they are using a purely syntactic criterion of order. Nobody
>is right in debates like this[...]
>
> Nobody's right if everybody's wrong...
>
> But I didn't come here to talk order, law and or otherwise. I came here to
>talk about CL, types/sorts, and syntax. All of the concrete syntactic sugar
>to allow variables to be constrained to satisfy some one-place predicate.
>However, the semantics are explicitly and deliberately designed so that type
>errors lead to sentences which are always false, rather than being syntax
>errors. (02)
Yes, that is correct. (03)
> Was a sorted dialect of CL ever proposed? (04)
In the early stages of the project, there was some enthusiasm for this idea,
yes. However, as far as I know, nobody in the working group ever came up with a
concrete proposal for a fully sorted logic. In order to be fully general, it
would have to provide a general notation for defining the sorts and the sort
constraints upon the arguments of all sorted relations, and relationships that
hold between sorts. The major problem is that there is no single notion of a
sorted logic, and no rational way to choose between the many alternatives. We
could not agree, as I recall, on such matters as whether sorts should be
allowed to form a hierarchy, whether or not overloading would be allowed (eg
the binary relation Married whose arguments can be of sort (male, female) or
(female, male) but not - bear in mind this was several years ago - (male,
male) or (female, female) ). On balance, since the proponents of a sorted logic
were not able to agree on even the most basic decisions which need to be
settled before a logic could even be designed, the decision was taken to make
the logic unsorted. This was in any case in line with the emerging sense that
the purpose of CL would be best served by making the logic have as few
syntactic constraints as possible, what Chris Menzel once called 'wild west
syntax', which is about as far from a typed logic as one can get. (05)
This was several years ago, so is based upon recollection. Others who were
involved may remember other details. (06)
Pat (07)
>
> Simon
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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 (08)
------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes (09)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (010)
|