From: pat hayes ([email protected])
Date: 11/04/03
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 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 : 11/04/03 EST