

RE: Reification

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 12:16:46 -0500
Message-Id: <v04210109b6f79dbf4a09@[]>
To: "Danny Ayers" <danny@panlanka.net>
Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
>BTW, to my machine (and me)  "for y in AD, if <x,y> in IR(?P) and <y,z> in
>IR(?P) then <x,z> in IR(?P)" doesn't mean anything more than e.g.  "not"
>does - where is this meaning exactly?

The point is not to give a readable exposition of the meaning, but a 
mathematically checkable standard. The trouble with just saying "not" 
is that even logical words can be interpreted in all kinds of ways. 
Some people take "not p" to mean that p isnt proven, others that p is 
false, others that they are not asserting p one way or the other, 
others yet to mean something like "I can give a constructive 
refutation of any attempt to prove p", others even more yet to mean 
something like "I can play a game of refute-versus-prove with p and 
always win it".  So just saying "not" leaves the issue open; whereas 
the model theory settles the issue very exactly. Like the Standard 
Metre in Paris, it's not intended for daily use, but it does settle 
any debates about exactly what is what.

Pat Hayes

IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
Received on Monday, 9 April 2001 15:14:39 GMT
