SUO: Re: RE: Logic & Programming Languages
Sidebar:
As part of the impressive wisdom emenating from JS as a matter of course,
the following seems to me to emblemize our problems when we venture into
activities for which we don't have adeqate tools of problem solving (in
addition to logic): knowlege based on credible information or personal
experience or both:
*****
--JS wrote: ----
> Suppose I gave you a problem: use logic to determine the date when the
first living cell arose on planet earth.
If you fail to answer that question, it is not because you
aren't logical, but because you have no information to use
as the original premises and axioms for a proof.
*****
:) Appreciatively, L.
----------
Dr. L. D. Misek-Falkoff, Speaker and Chronic Pain Chair
The National Disability Party http://www.disabilityparty.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@bestweb.net>
To: "Danny Ayers" <danny@isacat.net>; <cg@cs.uah.edu>; <sowa@bestweb.net>;
<standard-upper-ontology@IEEE.org>
Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2001 12:35 AM
Subject: CG: RE: Logic & Programming Languages
> Danny and Bill,
>
> Basic principle: FOL is the standard logic that is used to
> solve problems and derive proofs in mathematics. Therefore,
> when you are using any version of mathematics, including
> probability theory, you are taking advantage of FOL.
>
> DA>Perhaps (coin-) Flipper and his species might have something like the
Rev.
>
> >Bayes' material instead of FOL as their main reasoning system?
>
> That is possible. But that is perfectly consistent with their
> also using FOL. When I use trigonometry to determine the area
> of a structure, I am also taking advantage of geometry and FOL
> for analyzing the original problem, deciding how to draw lines
> to break it up into suitable triangles, etc.
>
> WT>>... I can see how one can logically select an answer when
> >>one result is
> >>more probable than another. I just have not yet seen any logical
> >>formula that
> >>lets me choose between two equally probable results.
>
> That is because there is no information that could logically
> be used to increase the probability of either side of the coin
> over the other. It's not a failure of logic -- it's simply
> a lack of information.
>
> Suppose I gave you a problem: use logic to determine the
> date when the first living cell arose on planet earth.
>
> If you fail to answer that question, it is not because you
> aren't logical, but because you have no information to use
> as the original premises and axioms for a proof.
>
> John Sowa
>