Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!cbatt!ucbvax!jharper@seismo.CSS.GOV@euroies.UUCP From: jharper@seismo.CSS.GOV@euroies.UUCP Newsgroups: mod.ai Subject: Re: logic in ai Message-ID: <8702271342.AA28822@mcvax.cwi.nl> Date: Fri, 27-Feb-87 07:46:54 EST Article-I.D.: mcvax.8702271342.AA28822 Posted: Fri Feb 27 07:46:54 1987 Date-Received: Mon, 2-Mar-87 21:35:33 EST References: <8702242147.AA13311@kestrel.ARPA> Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: euroies!jharper (Jerry Harper) Distribution: world Organization: EuroKom, University College Dublin Lines: 23 Approved: ailist@sri-stripe.arpa I think some useful distinction can be made between the use of _formalisms_ in AI and the use of logic(s). The function of the latter with respect to a series of inference rules and a particular domain of discourse is the characterization of truth and logical consequence. The function of the former on my own reading of AI literature concerned with NLP systems seems to merely crystallize certain _intuitions_ a researcher may have about the description and solution to a various problem. In some cases these may conform to a logical calculus, in other cases they merely appear to do so. This is quite reasonable in a research context such as AI provided one accepts that computational tractability and formal rigour are different objectives served by methodological demands. For instance, it would be impossible to build the model theory of many logics used for semantic investigations of natural language into a computational system. Yet _doing_ semantics entails the use of infinitary methodology once the model theory is based on possible worlds. Reinterpreting a semantic theory computationally is not equivalent. More fundamentally, it is the usage of the word _logic_ which is at issue. With the plethora of logical calculi it makes little sense to claim one uses _a lot of logic_ in ones work. Indeed if anyone has an uncontentious definition of modern logic please forward it.