[Attempto] Question about fol output of APE ('should' and 'must')

[Joshua Cason]

Norbert,

That does answer my question and gives me a solution to my problem. I guess
I was focusing on 'should' and didn't realize 'must' would have actually
worked. I can just use 'can' instead of 'should' for my purposes.

Thanks a lot!

Josh Cason

On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 1:05 PM, Norbert E. Fuchs <fuchs at ifi.uzh.ch> wrote:

>
> > On 21 Jan 2015, at 23:52 , Joshua Cason <joshua.aaron.cason at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Dear All,
> >
> > I just wanted to confirm that sentences with 'should' and 'must' are not
> supposed to be translatable to fol in APE. I was having trouble with some
> sentences I was trying, and I finally realized it was the use of those
> words that caused the trouble.
> >
> > Best,
> > Josh Cason
>
> Joshua
>
> ACE provides modality with modal auxiliaries for possibility
> (can/cannot/can not/can't), necessity (must/have to/does not have to),
> recommendation (should/should not/shouldn't), and admissibility (may/may
> not) all of which are translated by APE into a similar DRS.
>
> Here are some examples:
>
> A man can sleep.
>
> [A]
> object(A,man,countable,na,eq,1)-1/2
>    CAN
>    [B]
>    predicate(B,sleep,A)-1/4
>
>
> A man must sleep.
>
> [A]
> object(A,man,countable,na,eq,1)-1/2
>    MUST
>    [B]
>    predicate(B,sleep,A)-1/4
>
>
> A man should sleep.
>
> [A]
> object(A,man,countable,na,eq,1)-1/2
>    SHOULD
>    [B]
>    predicate(B,sleep,A)-1/4
>
>
> A man may sleep.
>
> [A]
> object(A,man,countable,na,eq,1)-1/2
>    MAY
>    [B]
>    predicate(B,sleep,A)-1/4
>
>
> Only the modalities 'possibility' and 'necessity' have a translation into
> FOL using the possible world semantics (
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possible_world,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_logic#Semantics) via the standard
> transformation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_translation).
>
> The standard translation adds to each DRS condition an argument – in our
> translation the initial argument – that stands for a possible world.
> Possible worlds are related by an accessibility relation that in the case
> of my reasoner RACE is the equivalence relation (reflexive, symmetric and
> transitive) to allow for as many deductions as possible.
>
> Here are the 'possibility' and 'necessity' examples from above in FOL
>
> A man can sleep. (= There is at least on accessible world in which a man
> sleeps.)
>
>
> exists(A,&(object(B,A,man,countable,na,eq,1)-1/2,exists(C,&(accessibility_relation(B,C)-accessibility_relation/0,exists(D,predicate(C,D,sleep,A)-1/4)))))
>
> Please note that for consistency the condition accessibility_relation/2
> gets a sentence/token indicator accessibility_relation/0.
>
>
> A man must sleep. (= In all accessible worlds a man sleeps.)
>
>
> exists(A,&(object(B,A,man,countable,na,eq,1)-1/2,forall(C,=>(accessibility_relation(B,C)-accessibility_relation/0,exists(D,predicate(C,D,sleep,A)-1/4)))))
>
>
> I hope that this answers your question. If not, let me and the mailing
> list know.
>
> Best.
>
> Norbert E. Fuchs
> Department of Informatics & Institute of Computational Linguistics
> University of Zurich
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ifi.uzh.ch/pipermail/attempto/attachments/20150122/326236c3/attachment.html>