Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,comp.ai,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.cognitive,sci.psychology.theory
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!cornellcs!travelers.mail.cornell.edu!news.kei.com!simtel!news.sprintlink.net!in1.uu.net!allegra!alice!rhh
From: rhh@research.att.com (Ron Hardin <9289-11216> 0112110)
Subject: Re: Does AI make philosophy obsolete?
Message-ID: <DFvrDL.GH5@research.att.com>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ
References: <DFnG0u.1Gu@research.att.com> <44h0ga$dqh@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <DFtMqy.9tD@research.att.com> <DFv9tE.152@cee.hw.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 1995 16:05:45 GMT
Lines: 15
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai:33825 comp.ai.philosophy:33312 sci.cognitive:9840 sci.psychology.theory:916

Andrew Dinn writes:
>yes but as John is pointing out its not always a question of
>verification. Sometimes out reasoning progresses by invalidating that
>which we have verified.

The idea was use formal verification to verify that what you want never occurs,
and it will produce the solution you really want, calling it
an error of course; but it's a success from your contrary
point of view.

Or it may pass, and then there's no solution.

Literary question: if the additions to the problems are expressed
in BDD's instead of the equivalent logical sentences, does the
question of incrementalism come up?
