Re: adjective noun first order logic
- From: LauLuna <laureanoluna@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 04:08:02 -0800 (PST)
On Dec 6, 8:24 am, Keenlearner <yin...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thanks for the reply, actually I was thinking to write "John is an old
man", but I thought that will give raise of existential quantifier,
because I want it to be simpler. Why is there not existential
quantifier for "John is an old man" ? Thank you.
On Dec 6, 5:23 am, David Ullrich <ullr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Keenlearner wrote:
I am doing natural language processing research, I was wondering which
is the correct way of representing "old man John" in first order
predicate calculus, later on this logic will be converted into Prolog
clauses.
old(john) ^ man(john)
old(john) => man(john)
man(john) => old(john)
if you think one is wrong or right please tell me why ?! Thank you
very very much.
None of those is a correct "representation" of "old man John",
because they are all (representations of) _assertions_, and
"old man John" is not an assertion.
If ^ means "and" then "old(John) ^ man(John)" is a correct
representation of the _assertion_ "John is an old man".
That's not the same thing.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
You need no existential quantifier because you need to use no
variables at all. As you said, John is a constant.
.
- References:
- adjective noun first order logic
- From: Keenlearner
- Re: adjective noun first order logic
- From: David Ullrich
- Re: adjective noun first order logic
- From: Keenlearner
- adjective noun first order logic
- Prev by Date: Re: Enderton problem
- Next by Date: Re: predicate in a predicate
- Previous by thread: Re: adjective noun first order logic
- Next by thread: Re: adjective noun first order logic
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading