SUO: RE: RE: A New Fundamentally Different Formal Motion
Hi Randall;
Please see below:
<snip>
> It seems to me that what's needed is a way to experiment readily with
> different axiomatizations, not just talk about them. If Cyc's logic
> were better specified, it would constitute a platform for such an
> experimental effort, but since it differs so widely and unspecifiedly
> from FOL or any other well-defined logic, it's value in experimental
> ontology design is limited as well.
[ELP] Cyc is not on the table for discussion. OpenCyc is. I haven't
bumped into any higher ordered axioms in the OpenCyc knowledge base.
Is anybody aware of anything in OpenCyc that is anything but a syntactic
variant of FOL?
-Eric
P.S. I think you would be hard pressed to back up your claims against
the Cyc logic. I had to look hard to find higher order axioms and found
few. I just avoid using them and do fine. They didn't at all appear to
be entrenched in the code. But I think you are mixing up their
inference methods with their axioms. Default logic is their default for
certain types of axioms and they use something more exotic than negation
as failure. But we are in the axiom business here.
Have you ever used it? Your criticisms smack of the attenuated
reliability of multiple hearings and retellings and little to no
verification. I assume that such attenuation is one of the important
reasons that hearsay isn't allowed in the courtroom.