osborn@ultima.socs.uts.edu.au (Any Approximations At All...) (10/11/90)
jmc@Gang-of-Four.usenet (John McCarthy) writes: >We can make an analogy with the fact that we can write an interpreter >for any good programming language in any another. We can talk about >logic in ordinary language, and we can formalize ordinary language and >reasoning in logic. If "grounding" is an oversimplified term, this paragraph is an overextended analogy. Interpreters of _programming_ languages parse and map state transition instructions of a well formed kind. However, "talking _about_ logic in an "ordinary" language" (generally) cloaks a sparse string of symbols and transformation rules in concrete terms. Ie, to convey an impression of what logic does, something is _added_ to it (however imprecisely). But to formalise "ordinary" language in logic you throw things away (context, imagination, physical referants, affects, ...). Formalising reasoning in logic? Well, I'spose that's OK for formal reasoning - so long as formal means explicit. But how do I read "..ng language in any another" as "..in any other" or "..in another". I've never seen that mistake before, but I know J McC meant to make sense. [Post hoc excluded?] Now, what am I talking about when I say I know that? I reasoned that way? Cheers, Tomasso. -- Tom Osborn, "Make everything as simple School of Computing Sciences, as possible, ... University of Technology, Sydney, ... but not more so." PO Box 123 Broadway 2007, AUSTRALIA.