On 9/7/2018 10:51 AM, Francesco Bellucci wrote:
But what does "map his terminologies to FOL" mean, really?
I apologize. The word 'map' in that sentence was a careless mistake. I've been working on AI and computational linguistics for years, and I fully realize the enormous range of difficulties. For example, I have been quoting Peirce's note to B. E. Smith for years.
So, it is one thing to say that we should evaluate Peirce's semiotic ideas on the background of logic: this I agree wholeheartedly and I wrote a book based precisely on this idea.
Yes. I have read many of your writings and cited some of them. I think they're very good. But I want to emphasize that a very useful subset of any natural language can indeed be mapped to FOL. The earliest example is Ockham's theory of propositions, which is Part II of Summa Logicae. In that book, which Peirce had lectured on at Harvard, Ockham developed a model-theoretic semantics for a very useful subset of Latin: simple sentences in Aristotle's four sentence types, and Boolean connectives for AND, OR, NOT, and IF-THEN. That version of Latin can express a large subset of FOL. Furthermore, the discourse representation structures (DRS) by Hans Kamp, which are widely used in computational linguistics, are limited to FOL. In fact, they are isomorphic to Peirce's Alpha + Beta EGs. For an overview, see slides 25 to 32 of http://jfsowa.com/talks/egintro.pdf John
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
