Re: kif"Michael R. Genesereth" <mrg@cs.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 93 19:19:38 PST
From: "Michael R. Genesereth" <mrg@cs.Stanford.EDU>
To: Matthew L. Ginsberg <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: email@example.com, interlingua@ISI.EDU, firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Re: kif
In-reply-to: Your message of Wed, 15 Dec 93 19:08:34 PST
Right you are in point out the typo in the current ersion of the kif spec.
The schema should read as follows:
(<=> (true 'phi) phi*)
It is intended to be Perlis's tretament.
As for the the equivalence, if you woud read the references I suggested, you
would see that the law of the excluded must be added for the equivalence to
hold. See Turner page 37.
As mentioned in my note, Perlis proves the consistency of the axiom schema
with any kb not containing true. This shows that it is not paradoxical. ne
can then add any statements containing true that are not themselves
paradoxcal and that hopefully are not false. Thus,m the language is not
limited in the way tyou suggest in your note.
I think I can safely say that the spirit of your note is not the constructive
spirit I was advocating in my last paragraph. Ho ho ho yourself, scroogy.