Dear Martin,
> The FOL formalisation is NOT about publicly available place attestations.
> This has not be said anywhere. Generally, the FOL statements are not
> constraint by known knowledge. If you question this, or require in the FOL to
> distinguish known knowledge from ontologically
Dear Wolfgang,
I do not agree with your conclusions.
The FOL formalisation is NOT about publicly available place
attestations. This has not be said anywhere. Generally, the FOL
statements are not constraint by known knowledge. If you question this,
or require in the FOL to distinguish known
An even easier example to see that the FOL formalisation is wrong is a stolen
painting with unknown whereabouts. In this case there is a place attestation of
the origin but no (publicly available) place attestation of the move at all,
unless we argue with an implicit "move took place at Planet
Dear George,
Yes, exactly!
Best,
Wolfgang
> Am 26.10.2022 um 22:02 schrieb George Bruseker via Crm-sig
> :
>
> Dear Martin and Wolfgang,
>
> >
> >> Therefore, the described destination is an instance of E53 Place which P89
> >> falls within (contains) the instance of E53 Place the move P7
Dear Martin and Wolfgang,
>
> >> Therefore, the described destination is an instance of E53 Place which
> P89 falls within (contains) the instance of E53 Place the move P7 took
> place at.
> > P26(x,y) ⇒ (∃z) [E53(z) ∧ P7(x,z) ∧ P89(y,z)]
> >
> > I assume that P26 behaves in the same way as P7,
Dear Wolfgang,
On 10/26/2022 2:00 PM, Wolfgang Schmidle via Crm-sig wrote:
Dear All,
The scope note of P26 "moved to" says:
The area of the move includes the origin(s), route and destination(s).
I have no issue with that. However, I think the formalisation is not correct:
Therefore, the
