ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] mKR proof of correctness

To: rhm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Richard H. McCullough" <rhmccullough@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: William Thomas <wthomas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Richard S. Latimer" <rslatimer@xxxxxxx>, KR-language <kr-language@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, David Kelley <dkelley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2014 23:26:15 -0500
Message-id: <A4E26487-4F4B-49C1-A885-D71533E1936C@xxxxxxx>

On Apr 4, 2014, at 1:40 AM, Richard H. McCullough <rhmccullough@xxxxxxxxx> 
wrote:    (01)

> Pat
> 
> To put it most simply:
> 
> Yes, I take Ayn Rand's book, "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology"
> to be a true description of human epistemology.    (02)

OK, then there is little point in our continuing to debate technical matters, 
as I most emphatically do not take it to be true.     (03)

> Yes, the design and intent of the mKR language is to be able
> to "say" very precisely what Rand's book says.
> In the broader view, this means that mKR can express conceptual ideas
> in a way that is equivalent to the way people express conceptual ideas.    (04)

If one accepts the premis that Rand's book is veridical, which I do not.     (05)

Pat    (06)


>  mKR is designed to be like a simplified, precise, concise natural language.
> 
> Dick McCullough 
> Context Knowledge Systems 
> mKE and the mKR language 
> mKR/mKE tutorial
> 
> > Subject: Re: mKR proof of correctness
> > From: phayes@xxxxxxx
> > Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2014 22:20:23 -0500
> > CC: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx; 
>kr-language@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; rslatimer@xxxxxxx;dkelley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 
>wthomas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > To: rhm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; rhmccullough@xxxxxxxxx
> > 
> > 
> > On Apr 3, 2014, at 12:14 AM, Richard H. McCullough <rhmccullough@xxxxxxxxx> 
>wrote:
> > 
> > > Folks, I'm starting to get really confused about who said what to whom.
> > > 
> > > So, I'm just going to repeat what I said to Pat,
> > > because this is important.
> > 
> > Pat is beginning to wonder why he ever got involved in this conversation, 
>but...
> > 
> > > The Objectivist Axioms describe the epistemology of man --
> > > how he perceives and conceives the external world.
> > > They are the foundation of all man's languages
> > > and knowledge.
> > 
> > Let me try to get my understanding of your position clear. Do you regard 
>Rand's writings as in some sense foundational? So that to conform with her 
>ideas (assuming that you can show that your notation does so conform, but let 
>us assume that for now) constitutes, in your view, a **proof** of their 
>objective correctness? That is, the writings of Rand constitute a kind of 
>empirical test of objective truth?
> > 
> > It would be useful to get this clear before delving into details.
> > 
> > Pat
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > Dick McCullough 
> > > Context Knowledge Systems 
> > > mKE and the mKR language 
> > > mKR/mKE tutorial
> > > 
> > > > Subject: Re: mKR proof of correctness
> > > > From: phayes@xxxxxxx
> > > > Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2014 22:21:15 -0500
> > > > CC: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx; 
>kr-language@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; rslatimer@xxxxxxx;dkelley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 
>wthomas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > To: rhm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; rhmccullough@xxxxxxxxx
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On Apr 2, 2014, at 5:10 PM, Richard H. McCullough 
><rhmccullough@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > John
> > > > > 
> > > > > I don't want there to be any doubt about what I'm saying,
> > > > > so I'm devoting one extra email to this topic.
> > > > > 
> > > 
> > > > The mKR language is proved semantically correct
> > > > > because the mKR run-time system guarantees
> > > > > that the Objectivist Axioms are satisfied.
> > > > 
> > > > I actually laughed out loud when I read this. First, I have no idea 
>what you mean by proving a lan
> > guage to be semantically correct, but claiming anything semantic **because 
>some axioms are present** misses the entire point of having semantics in the 
>first place, which is to connect formal sentences with claims about the actual 
>world. Then again there is your conflation of semantics with a 'run-time 
>system', which I take it means a system that performs inferences. But without 
>an independent semantics, how does one know that these inferences are valid or 
>complete? The general problem of proving that a program is correct is still 
>open, of course, but any approach to even defining what this means requires 
>that the language of the program has some kind of separate semantics. If the 
>run-time system *Is* the semantics then 'correctness' is trivial to prove - 
>the program does what the program does - but also trivially meaningless. But 
>the final howler here is the idea that Ayn Rand's thoughts might have 
>anything, even the shred of a remotest connection, to do with correctness, in 
>any sense of that word. 
> > > > 
> > > > IF your notation had a semantic theory that would enable an objective 
>check to be made on its validity, and IF you could then show that those axioms 
>were satisfied AND that your run-time system preserved truth (or whatever your 
>semantics calls it), then you might reasonably claim that mKE had a property 
>that one might 
> > call Randianicity: conformity to the thoughts of Ayn Rand. But to call this 
>property "semantic correctness" is simply farcical. 
> > > > 
> > > > Pat Hayes
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Dick McCullough 
> > > > > Context Knowledge Systems 
> > > > > mKE and the mKR language 
> > > > > mKR/mKE tutorial
> > > > 
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > IHMC (850)434 8903(850)434 8903(850)434 8903 home
> > > > 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416(850)202 4416(850)202 4416 office
> > > > Pensacola (850)202 4440(850)202 4440(850)202 4440 fax
> > > > FL 32502 (850)291 0667(850)291 0667(850)291 0667 mobile (preferred)
> > > > phayes@xxxxxxx http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > 
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > IHMC (850)434 8903(850)434 8903 home
> > 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416(850)202 4416 office
> > Pensacola (850)202 4440(850)202 4440 fax
> > FL 32502 (850)291 0667(850)291 0667 mobile (preferred)
> > phayes@xxxxxxx http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >     (07)

------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 home
40 South Alcaniz St.            (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile (preferred)
phayes@xxxxxxx       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes    (08)







_________________________________________________________________
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    (09)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>