[Attempto] or is interpreted as inclusive or , or xor?

[Alex Shkotin]

actually my idea was that having a good axioms the XOR may be derived from
OR (and that axioms).
For ex., for cash-machine we have XOR but for wallet - not.

Alex


2010/7/11 Gabriele Kahlout <gabriele at mysimpatico.com>

> It could be more naturally written as:
> "If a card is inserted then exactly it is inserted".
>
> But both are not complete ACE. I write:
> "If a card is inserted by somebody then exactly 1 card is inserted by
> everybody".
> Does it mean that everybody inserts a card (so the number of everybody) or
> that all of them together have only one card inserted?
>
> Again, would this be the most "natural" way to express XOR for "a customer
> inserts a VisaCard or inserts a MasterCard?
> I found no documentation on expressing mutual exclusiveness.
>
> 2010/7/11 Alex Shkotin <alex.shkotin at gmail.com>
>
> Hi Gabriele,
>>
>> It seems that if you have an axiom of your application area of kind you
>> have written:
>>
>> "If a card X1 is inserted then exactly X1 is inserted. ..."
>>
>> then later in "factology" they may simply report that
>>  "A customer inserts a VisaCard or inserts a MasterCard"
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>
>> 2010/7/11 Gabriele Kahlout <gabriele at mysimpatico.com>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2010/7/11 Norbert E. Fuchs <fuchs at ifi.uzh.ch>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 11 Jul 2010, at 09:12, Gabriele Kahlout wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > So this could mean that a customer could insert 2 cards before
>>>> inserting a code  in
>>>> > A customer inserts a VisaCard or inserts a MasterCard, and inserts a
>>>> code.
>>>> > Wasn't natural language or mostly xor?
>>>>
>>>> Not in our experience. We checked naturally occurring "either-or" on the
>>>> web, and found that in most cases it did not mean exclusive or, but
>>>> emphasis.
>>>>
>>>> That's interesting, is there a report on this research?
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_or#Exclusive_.E2.80.9Cor.E2.80.9D_in_natural_language
>>>
>>>
>>> So in this case one should have written "the customer inserts a VisaCard
>>> or inserts a MasterCard, and not both and inserts a code.
>>> But there is no support for both, so how could mutual exclusiveness be
>>> expressed?
>>>
>>> "No card is inserted while another card is inserted. The customer inserts
>>> a VisaCard or inserts a MasterCard, and inserts a code."
>>> but function words while and another don't exist. So:
>>> "If a card is inserted then no other card is inserted. ..."
>>> but other also doesn't exist:
>>> "If a card X1 is inserted then no card is inserted except X1. ..."
>>> but except doesn't exist:
>>> "If a card X1 is inserted then exactly X1 is inserted. ..."
>>> exactly meaning that no other card is inserted.
>>>
>>> Is the last the most natural way to express xor in ACE for the example
>>> sentence?
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Regards,
>>> K. Gabriele
>>>
>>> --- unchanged since 25/1/10 ---
>>> P.S. Unless a notification (LON), please reply either with an answer OR
>>> with " ACK" appended to this subject within 48 hours. Otherwise, I might
>>> resend.
>>> In(LON, this) ∨ In(48h, TimeNow) ∨ ∃x. In(x, MyInbox) ∧ IsAnswerTo(x,
>>> this) ∨ (In(subject(this), subject(x)) ∧ In(ACK, subject(x)) ∧
>>> ¬IsAnswerTo(x,this)) ⇒ ¬IResend(this).
>>>
>>> Also note that correspondence may be received only from specified a
>>> priori senders, or if the subject of this email ends with a code, eg.
>>> -LICHT01X, then also from senders whose reply contains it.
>>> ∀x. In(x, MyInbox) ⇒ In(senderAddress(x), MySafeSenderList) ∨ (∃y. In(y,
>>> subject(this) ) ∧ In(y,x) ∧ isCodeLike(y, -LICHT01X) ).
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> attempto mailing list
>>> attempto at lists.ifi.uzh.ch
>>> https://lists.ifi.uzh.ch/listinfo/attempto
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> K. Gabriele
>
> --- unchanged since 25/1/10 ---
> P.S. Unless a notification (LON), please reply either with an answer OR
> with " ACK" appended to this subject within 48 hours. Otherwise, I might
> resend.
> In(LON, this) ∨ In(48h, TimeNow) ∨ ∃x. In(x, MyInbox) ∧ IsAnswerTo(x, this)
> ∨ (In(subject(this), subject(x)) ∧ In(ACK, subject(x)) ∧
> ¬IsAnswerTo(x,this)) ⇒ ¬IResend(this).
>
> Also note that correspondence may be received only from specified a priori
> senders, or if the subject of this email ends with a code, eg. -LICHT01X,
> then also from senders whose reply contains it.
> ∀x. In(x, MyInbox) ⇒ In(senderAddress(x), MySafeSenderList) ∨ (∃y. In(y,
> subject(this) ) ∧ In(y,x) ∧ isCodeLike(y, -LICHT01X) ).
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ifi.uzh.ch/pipermail/attempto/attachments/20100711/f8f7d75b/attachment-0001.htm>