On 7/25/2012 12:45 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
> JMcC's point was that there was no single "theory" of contexts; that
> contexts are not a natural kind, and a "context" is just anything
> that anyone cares to use in a context kind of a way, ie as something
> that influences truth values and denotations. (01)
I agree with that idea. (02)
> my (often repeated) objection that time, for example, and belief,
> for example, were very different kinds of thing and influenced
> truth in very different kinds of ways... (03)
I also agree with that. (04)
> his response was always that the point of a context logic was not
> to capture the essence or nature of contexts, but rather to be simply
> a general framework for stating inferences which might be influenced
> by *any* kind of context. (05)
And I have no objection to that idea. (06)
JFS
>> "(that p)" is a kind of quasi-quotation that allows
>> variables in p to be bound to quantifiers outside of p. (07)
PH
> Hmm, I don't think it is correct to think of it as quasi-quotation.
> Rather than quoting the sentence, it treats it as defining a
> zero-ary predicate, and creates a term denoting that entity. (08)
The backquote in LISP can be applied to any expression. The IKL
'that' operator can be implemented in LISP by applying backquote
to sentences in some version of logic. (09)
That is an explanation that is meaningless to anybody who does
not know LISP. But LISP aficionados like that way of talking. (010)
In any case, I agree that your definition is the proper way
to define 'that' in purely CL or IKL terms. (011)
John (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 (013)
|