Pat Hayes wrote:  (01)
>>> (forall (c)(ist c (that (rains))))
>>> In IKL, a relation with no arguments is itself a proposition, so one 
>>> could write it without the "that":
>>>
>>> (forall (c)(ist c rains))
>>
>> Just a syntactic feature?
>
> Yes, essentially. It is way that the use/mention distinction applied to 
> propositions comes out in the IKL syntax.  (02) 
So if
(that (rains))  (03)
is equivalent to
rains  (04)
, is
(that (dead osama))  (05)
equivalent to  (06)
"dead osama"
?  (07)
vQ  (08)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ 
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ 
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  (09)