On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 7:22:46 AM UTC-5, Tomas Pales wrote: > > > > On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 12:58:27 PM UTC+1, Philip Thrift wrote: > >> >> But if the running code of a robot (say installed in Sophia [ >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophia_(robot) ] ) is compiled from some >> paraconsistent logic program, I think it's perfectly fine to say *"Sophia >> is a paraconsistent object."* >> >> > The robot would be a paraconsistent object if some of its components were > not what they are. >
I don't think that's a good definition of "paraconsistent", at least as it would be taught to both philosophy and programming (computer science) students. The SEP article is as good of an up-to-date (May 18, 2018) "textbook" as any on the subject as any on the subject: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-paraconsistent/ by Graham Priest, et al. - pt -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
