Re: SUO: RE: Re: Peirce's MS 514
>Chris,
>
>I agree with your "niggling points" as I do with Pat's
>"quibbles". (Which is bigger, a niggle or a quibble?)
Not sure; but a quiggle sounds to be more than a nibble.
> >
> >Niggling point: entailment depends on notation as well, since it is
> >always some set of statements in some notation (some language) that
> >entails some other sentence in that notation.
>
>I used the word "statement" to avoid getting into details
>about the distinction between a "statement" and a "proposition".
>But as I have said in my KR book (Ch. 5) and many email notes,
>I prefer to define a proposition as an equivalence class
>of statements in multiple languages. With such a definition,
>you can talk about entailment in a form that factors out as
>much of the notation as you like. (The larger the equivalence
>class, the smaller the dependence on any particular notation.)
>
>This kind of factoring is especially important for the SUO,
>since we must deal with multiple languages, including CGs,
>DAML, OIL, SQL, RDF, UML, and versions of controlled natural
>languages, such as ACE or Aristotelian syllogisms.
>
Interesting idea, and I agree important. But to give it flesh you
need to say what the equivalence relation is, relative to which the
equivalence classes are defined; and that in turn seems to require
some way to compare the semantic content of expressions from
different languages. If they are all interpreted in the same
structures one could see how this would go - equivalent expressions
denote the same things in all interpretations - but the more general
construction eludes me.
If this is all in your book, I apologise for not yet getting that far.
Pat
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 home
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax
phayes@ai.uwf.edu
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes