Re: Objects and Relations

From: NENASHI, Tegiri <tnmail42_at_gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 20:52:29 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <Xns98C9979FA5332asdgba_at_194.177.96.26>

"David BL" <davidbl_at_iinet.net.au> wrote in news:1170253086.235840.14960 _at_l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> I thought RA was a strict subset of FOL - ie Horn clauses without
> recursion and negation.

RA has 'safe' negation. It is called 'minus'.

>
> I've been trying to understand what things aren't possible with the
> basic RA (given that it's not Turing complete).

For example, the reachability in graphs can not be expressed. Received on Wed Jan 31 2007 - 20:52:29 CET

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: NENASHI, Tegiri: "Re: Objects and Relations"
Previous message: Neo: "Re: Objects and Relations"
Maybe in reply to: David BL: "Objects and Relations"
In reply to David BL: "Re: Objects and Relations"
Next in thread: NENASHI, Tegiri: "Re: Objects and Relations"

Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]

Original text of this message