Talk:Qualification problem

Philosophy: Metaphysics / Epistemology / Logic Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Metaphysics
	Epistemology
	Logic

Solution(s) to the qualification problem[edit]

Is this article an accepted solution to the qualification problem doi:10.1016/S0004-3702(01)00131-X? pgr94 (talk) 11:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it could be better. USER:JMSwtlk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.167.35.90 (talk) 13:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Literalism[edit]

The following was edited out under the guise of literalism which I would argue non-monotonic methods were meant to resolve, in part. It is retrieved and placed here until better support can be established for its original inclusion; this is under the guise of avoiding aspersions of neo-logicism. Of course, once there is support, the quality of the insertion can be judged and improved.

From an operational sense, measurement and algorithmic theory played heavily in computational success of disciplines, such as Knowledge-based engineering. By judicious application of insights from Weierstrass, situations that could be labeled as Zeno-like (Zeno solutions, et al, Another example) can be avoided if numerics stability can be maintained. Where the focus is beyond numerics, many situations are still problematic, though, and demand inordinate attention.

Note, please, the use of 'zeno' in a context that would deal with resolving shape, motion, and other physical aspects of the problem illustrated (to wit, over qualification) on this page. Who said that non-monotonic techniques apply only to text-based problems? jmswtlk (talk) 16:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More detail[edit]

I'm not a frequent Wiki editor but shouldn't this be a stub unless more information is added? 81.97.166.238 (talk) 23:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citations[edit]

I've added a citation from Reiter, but this should have more, including the original McCarthy paper and perhaps Commonsense Reasoning. If you happen to have a source handy, copy the ref style and add it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PBMagi (talk • contribs) 20:09, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]