|WikiProject Philosophy||(Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)|
the table currently hyperlinks items. This is bizarre and confusing to read. The article has nothing to DO with these random links —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 126.96.36.199 (talk • contribs) 03:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge with OWA
I would suggest to somehow merge the contents of this and the Open World Assumption article. They ought to explain essentially the two ends of the same concept. Or, in other words, you can not explain one without explaining the other, so that both articles would most likely end up looking like mirror images of each other. However I can not think of a proper way of doing so (redirecting one article to the other doesn't seem 'fair'). There should be examples of similar situations elsewere in Wikipedia, does anybody know about such examples? What has been previously done in such cases? --NavarroJ 11:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- While they intuitively are closely related, CWA is technically a form of Non-monotonic logic, while OWA seems to be mostly studied in ontology languages. I'd rather keep them separated for now, and see how these two articles evolve. The downside of merging is that the merged article is likely to evolve in two separate and mostly independent parts (Liberatore, 2006). 11:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Criticism of formula
Alternative formalizations not suffering from this problem have been proposed. In the following description, the considered knowledge base is assumed to be propositional. In all cases, the formalization of the closed world assumption is based on adding to the negation of the formulae that are “free for negation” for , i.e., the formulae that can be assumed to be false. In other words, the closed world assumption applied to a propositional formula generates the formula:
- NOTE FROM PUZZLED READER: The above formal statement makes no logical sense since it conjoins with the negations of all the propositions that are in - which is always inconsistent! Shouldn't it rather be: ?
"(...) the formalization of the closed world assumption is based on adding to (...)"
- we are adding to , and,
- denotes a formal language, and, therefore, represents a set:
the composition of the formula should be denoted with a (union) as opposed to the current (logical and), i.e.,
The definition currently reads:
The closed-world assumption (CWA), in a formal system of logic used for knowledge representation, is the presumption that a statement that is true is also known to be true.
I do not find it logically convincing that an "assumption" is defined as a "presumption". An assumption and a presumption are two different things, see for instance:
I think presumption in that sentence should be replaced by assumption.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Closed-world assumption. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090624113015/http://www.betaversion.org:80/~stefano/linotype/news/91/ to http://www.betaversion.org/~stefano/linotype/news/91/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at
You may set the
|checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting
|needhelp= to your help request.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set
|needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.
Example is terrible
Does anyone else think the table is among the worst? Why does the example reference the subject of the page? That's confusing to the reader. The whole "example" section is a disaster. --188.8.131.52 (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)