Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

SUO: RE: A disclaimer about 'new KIF'




John and Pat:

This is just the sort of discussion which I should like to see more of, and
which I consider essential to achieving clarity in a SUO. 

However, although I cannot tell with certainly, I think that you may be
discussing at cross purposes, since John refers to some utilization of a
hierarchy of meta-languages, while Pat speaks only of the expressiveness of
'sorted FOL'.

Clarification?

Jay

I don't think either of you mean that defining mathematical terminology is
trivial. For myself, I'd be hard-pressed to say which task is more
difficult.

-----Original Message-----
From: pat hayes [mailto:phayes@ai.uwf.edu]
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 8:51 AM
To: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
Subject: SUO: A disclaimer about 'new KIF'



As I have referred in a number of messages to the 'new KIF' that is 
going to be out soon and have several neat features, I ought to 
explain that this is the product of an ad-hoc group with no 
particular official status, and that although we have been in 
consultation with Mike Genesereth, the author of the original KIF, 
our ideas for a modified version have not yet been approved by him or 
indeed by anyone else.

Pat Hayes

PS. That said, I should respond to something thatJohn Sowa said in a 
recent message:

The language of core KIF is pure first-order.  But we have been
talking about extending KIF to a sorted language, which can be
used as a metalanguage for arbitrary many metalevels.  A sorted
first-order language can indeed support true HOL, if you allow
sorts that have uncountably many members.

Actually, sorted FOL/KIF has exactly the same expressive power as 
unsorted FOL/KIF, and cannot support true HOL. Also, it seems that 
the best way to understand the semantics of KIF (and certainly of the 
'new KIF') is that it is in fact a small but significant extension of 
pure first-order logic, in that some of its expressions are best 
thought of as finite encodings of infinite expressions in the 
infinitary logic Lw1w.

John goes on:

But in any case, defining all the terms of mathematics is
almost trivial in comparison to defining all the words of
English. ...

and I entirely agree.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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