Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.independent

Topic: Re: Set Theorists use EXTENSIONALITY ..... Logic Programmers UNIFY!
Replies: 4   Last Post: Jun 13, 2013 4:47 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Graham Cooper

Posts: 4,237
Registered: 5/20/10
Re: Set Theorists use EXTENSIONALITY ..... Logic Programmers UNIFY!
Posted: Jun 13, 2013 4:47 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Jun 13, 5:54 pm, Jan Burse <janbu...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Graham Cooper schrieb:
>

> > ~tail <- ~head
>
> > directly follows from
>
> > head <- tail
>
> The above cannot is contraposition, see also:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraposition
>
> It cannot turn positive information only:
>
>     p(1).
>
> Into positive and negative information:
>
>     forall X(p(X) <-> X=1).
>
> The contraposition cannot add negative information.
> It might only yield logical variants of the input
> theory, but it might not perform some completion.
>
> Contraposition is also an equivalence, in classical
> logic, because of double negation elimination:
>
>     P -> Q   =>   ~Q -> ~P
>              =>   ~~P -> ~~Q
>              <=>   P -> Q
>
> So its actualy:
>
>    P -> Q   <=>   ~Q -> ~P
>
> You can try to apply it to the fact p(1). Frist
> represent the fact as it is done in Prolog:
>
>      p(1) <- true.
>
> Then apply the contraposition:
>
>      ~true <- ~p(1).
>
> No negative information added! It is still that
> we cannot derive, assuming nats as domain:
>
>      P |- ~p(2)   /* not derivable */
>
> Bye
>




Not with that alone!

Are you seriously suggesting Negation As Failure = Not

and that's the end of story!

There's a difference between 'the platonic universe' and computations!

With computers you cast a line and wait a while and see if you got a
bite!

"NO FISH TODAY!" is what you tell your wife at the end of the day
when you go home!

It's the "NO!" that the PROLOG interpreter sadly responds after an
exhaustive search of matching facts!

You can't define the UoD with "I can't find the solution so it doesn't
exist!" and continue on using that fact as "untrue".

NOT() is a SET! like SUCCESSOR() is a SET.

nat( 0 ).

nat( succ( N ) ) :-
nat ( N ).

==========

wff( 1 ).

wff( not(not( F )) :-
wff( F )

-----------------

Try adding a SET SIZE!

p(1).

e( X , setp ) :- p( X ).

e( setp , singletons ).

then you can get

~p(2)


Herc

--
http://phpPROLOG.com
A.I. Software / Database on the Web!

Powered By SQL
SELECT HEADS.id
FROM QUERY
INNER JOIN HEADS
ON QUERY.ref=HEADS.ref
AND QUERY.term=HEADS.term


DATABASE QUERY
id ref term ref term
---------------------- ----------------
6 1 test1
6 2 aaa
7 1 test1 <=> 1 test1
7 2 bbb <=> 2 bbb
---------------------- ----------------

GOAL-AT-A-TIME UNIFY




Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.