|Abstract||These notes discuss formalizing contexts as first class objects. The basic relationships are: ist(c,p) meaning that the proposition p is true in the context c, and value(c,p) designating the value of the term e in the context c Besides these, there are lifting formulas that relate the propositions and terms in subcontexts to possibly more general propositions and terms in the outer context. Subcontextx are often specialised with regard to time, place and terminology. Introducing contexts as formal objects will permit axiomatizations in limited contexts to be expanded to transcend the original limitations. This seems necessary to provide AI programs using logic with certain capabilities that human fact representation and human reasoning possess. Fully implementing transcendence seems to require further extensions to mathematical logic, ie. beyond the nonmonotonic inference methods first invented in AI and now studied as a new domain of logic.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||No categories specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Albert Visser (1998). Contexts in Dynamic Predicate Logic. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 7 (1):21-52.
Christopher Gauker (1998). What is a Context of Utterance? Philosophical Studies 91 (2):149-172.
Ruth Manor (2006). Solving the Heap. Synthese 153 (2):171 - 186.
Dov Gabbay, Rolf Nossum & John Woods (2006). Context-Dependent Abduction and Relevance. Journal of Philosophical Logic 35 (1):65 - 81.
Christopher Menzel (1999). The Objective Conception of Context and its Logic. Minds and Machines 9 (1):29-56.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads12 ( #93,475 of 549,700 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,450 of 549,700 )
How can I increase my downloads?