Re: play(player, game)
Octav Popescu <octav <at> cmu.edu>
2005-05-25 23:16:53 GMT
One more question: It seems to me that even if you implement this change,
this won't change Krzysztof's example in any way, right? I'm not trying to
suggest it should, just trying to find out how it'd work. CLOSED wouldn't
mean that all members of the relation have to be asserted explicitly, some
could be inferred in the reasoning process. So in his example (ASSERT (PLAY
JANO JANO)) will infer (GAME JANO) and there would still be no contradiction
with the fact that it was not declared explicitly.
--On Wednesday, May 25, 2005 09:34 -0700 Thomas Russ <tar <at> ISI.EDU> wrote:
> I'll let Hans handle the other issues, but I'll tackle closed world.
> On May 24, 2005, at 10:38 PM, Octav Popescu wrote:
>> Then I guess my question is again: Any idea when you'll issue the next
>> Related to the problem with the CLOSED relations, I was trying to
>> think of possible problems, so I was wondering if you would fix that
>> only at the top level, or also at intermediate levels in the reasoning
>> process. Like for instance if one tries to prove (AND (P1 A) (P2 A)),
>> and (P1 A) is TRUE and (P2 A) cannot be proved but is declared CLOSED,
>> would the whole result be FALSE?
> That would be my preferred solution. That is, in part, why
> it is taking a while to get something running out.