From: Ian Horrocks (horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: 11/05/03
On November 4, pat hayes writes: > Suggestion, following Ben's reporting of Tim's observation. The ideas > that (1) an empty consequent is 'false' and (2) that a consequent is > a conjunction, are in opposition. The former arises historically from > thinking of a rule as an implication or a sequent, where a compound > consequent would be considered a disjunction. I think this is a > fundamental snag in the current proposal ( sorry I didnt notice it > before) and suggest that we change the basic rule syntax slightly so > that consequents are atomic, not conjunctive, but then allow the > present case as a Lloyd-Topor style syntactic sugar for a conjunction > of rules. This was always how it was intended, but we oversimplified the presentation. I agree that we should change it in order to head off this argument. Ian > This changes the presentation slightly but makes it natural > for an empty consequent to be considered a missing atom - false - > rather than an empty conjunction - true. It also simplifies the > semantics, and makes the Lloyd-Topor mapping work properly in all > cases. > > Pat > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home > 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office > Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax > FL 32501 (850)291 0667 cell > phayes@ihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 11/05/03 EST