Re: Joint Committee telecon tomorrow 4 November

From: Ian Horrocks ([email protected])
Date: 11/05/03

  • Next message: Ian Horrocks: "Re: Joint Committee telecon tomorrow 4 November"
    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
    > [email protected]       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
    > 
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 11/05/03 EST