From: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de   
      
   On 23 Jun 2006 07:19:23 -0700, makc.the.great@gmail.com wrote:   
      
   > Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:   
   >> On 23 Jun 2006 04:01:47 -0700, makc.the.great@gmail.com wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> in P(t1), Q(t2) => R(t0), what's t0(t1, t2)?   
   >>   
   >> Time.   
   >   
   > Very funny. I had t0 as function of t1 and t2 in mind.   
      
   I see, sorry.   
      
   >> You have P at t1, rather than P for all times. If t0 is the time now,   
   then...   
   >   
   > then we can build circular reasoning like A(1) |- B(2), B(2) |- A(3),   
   > A(3) |- B(4) where values will never age just because they are   
   > equivalent. hence I asked, how would you assign time tag to conclusion   
   > (based on time tags of premises).   
      
   No, the timestamp of the conclusion must be independent. Normally, it is   
   "now." But you could also reason for any given time in the past. For   
   example, to get a more accurate reasoning if you have a group of facts in a   
   distant past, or if you want to trace back a reasoning in the past. So t0   
   should be an independent parameter of reasoning.   
      
   --   
   Regards,   
   Dmitry A. Kazakov   
   http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)