Re: SUO: *Date 07 Apr 2002 -- Common Logic & Common Sense
On 4/6/02 23:40, "Jon Awbrey" <jawbrey@oakland.edu> wrote:
>
> €~~~~~~~~~€~~~~~~~~~€~~~~~~~~~€~~~~~~~~~€~~~~~~~~~€
>
> Bill,
>
> [snip]
> So, all of this stuff about "Show me something of clear and present
> practical import that I cannot represent in FOL" is just beside the
> point. The question is "How well can it be done within the limits
> of this or that concretely specific syntax for FOL?" And the answer
> is almost always "Not well".
Jon, that's a sweeping claim. And it deserves some substantiation. I've
been doing a lot of stuff over my career - first in AI, and for the past
seven years doing DB/ontology work, that works quite "well" and uses the
"broken" syntactic variants of FOL. I'm not the only one. All database
systems in widespread use today are in one way or another based on some
variant of FOL (of course the model theories differ substantially).
That said, you may certainly be correct in saying that there is a better
syntax out there. But why all the diatribe? Why not just come out and say
that's where your concern lies? It only takes a sentence or two.
> It's the same way with roman numerals:
> How do you multiply roman numerals? You convert them to decimals,
> multiply them out in that medium, and then convert the answer back
> to roman numerals. Which is exactly how almost all of the apparent
> progress & success in Principian Mold systems is actually achieved.
I will even grant that to some extent. But why not just propose some
alternative that you think will work better rather than directing desultory
shotgun blasts at FOL? That would make for much more entertaining (and
useful) reading for me anyway!
.bill