Re: beginner's question: Difference between CWA and NAF
- From: "DaMenge" <c-programming@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 15 Aug 2005 05:30:30 -0700
with "NAF => CWA" ,I mean :
"if one can suppose, that NAF leads to a correct interpretation of
negation then one can conclude the assumptions made by CWA"
Another way to say it : If you tell someone, who never heard anything
about CWA and NAF, that he can get the value of "not q(X)" in
p(X) :- s(X,Y), not q(X)
by checking all positive substitutes given by that s-literal in q to be
stored (or been proven in Prolog)
ie: let a positive substitution given by s , say X=a
if q(a) is proven(/stored), then "not q(a)" is wrong and if it's not,
then "not q(a)" is true.
With this rule of evaluation one should conclude the assumptions of the
CWA.
I guess i am wrong, but I don't see why at the moment.
Perhaps someone could give me an exact definition (for both: CWA and
NAF) first ?
thx for your help !
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: beginner's question: Difference between CWA and NAF
- From: Torkel Franzen
- Re: beginner's question: Difference between CWA and NAF
- From: Mauro Di Nuzzo
- Re: beginner's question: Difference between CWA and NAF
- References:
- beginner's question: Difference between CWA and NAF
- From: DaMenge
- Re: beginner's question: Difference between CWA and NAF
- From: Torkel Franzen
- beginner's question: Difference between CWA and NAF
- Prev by Date: Re: beginner's question: Difference between CWA and NAF
- Next by Date: completeness and forall
- Previous by thread: Re: beginner's question: Difference between CWA and NAF
- Next by thread: Re: beginner's question: Difference between CWA and NAF
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|