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 t
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, ie
Dear Wolfgang,
I must admit that I cannot easily answer large e-mails that mix up
several issues.
Firstly, a philosophical question for the below: Why do make the
distinction of known knowledge? The CRM FOL are explicitly about being,
not (only) about knowing. If you implicitly argue that t
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 de
Just for easy future reference the white paper that Martin mentioned is
here:
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/17171936.pdf
T.
___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
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 described destination is an instance of E53 Place which P89
> falls within (c
