Re: semantic paradoxes (was Re: how to handle DAML+OIL syntaxintheRDF model theory)

From: Pat Hayes (
Date: 12/07/01

>Pat Hayes wrote:
>>  >Er... it was your idea...
>>  OK, Touche.
>>  There are two rather different things that denying (p or not p) could
>>  mean. One (not so good) is to move from a 2-valued to a 3- or
>>  more-valued logic. The other (better) is to move to a constructive or
>>  intuitionistic logic. I should have checked which one you meant
>>  before reacting, sorry.
>Rather than an apology,
>I'd prefer a clarification to joint-committee to say
>that you don't think I'm completely off my rocker.

Whoops, I thought I had Ccd it., wrong strategy....

Pat hereby certifies that Dan Connolly is not completely off his rocker.

IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST