Talk:Closed-world assumption

the table currently hyperlinks items. This is bizarre and confusing to read. The article has nothing to DO with these random links &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.30.8.51 (talk &bull; 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)

Bold text

Criticism of formula
The following criticism was written directly into the text of the article by HassanAitKaci (talk):

--LukasMatt (talk) 12:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

"(...) the formalization of the closed world assumption is based on adding to $$K$$ (...)"

Since: the composition of the formula should be denoted with a $$\cup$$ (union) as opposed to the current $$\land$$ (logical and), i.e.,
 * 1) we are adding to $$K$$, and,
 * 2) $$K$$ denotes a formal language, and, therefore, represents a set:
 * $$K \cup \{\neg f ~|~ f \in F\}$$

--Plbt5 (talk) 13:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Definition
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:

http://www.vocabulary.com/articles/chooseyourwords/assume-presume/

I think presumption in that sentence should be replaced by assumption.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 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 ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:49, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

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. --142.105.196.254 (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.betaversion.org/~stefano/linotype/news/91/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141129131338/http://owl1-1.googlecode.com/svn-history/r374/trunk/www.webont.org/owled/2005/sub12.pdf to http://owl1-1.googlecode.com/svn-history/r374/trunk/www.webont.org/owled/2005/sub12.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Definition, part 2
As described in an earlier talk topic, the article reads that we "presume" that "a statement that is true is also known to be true." We should "assume" and not "presume," as mentioned in the previous topic.

Additionally, the following statement is also made by the article: "Therefore, conversely, what is not currently known to be true, is false." This does not seem to be a case of a converse material conditional. If a statement is true, then it is also known to be true [T(x) -> K(x)]. The converse of this conditional would be K(x) -> T(x), or that what is known to be true is also true, which T(x) -> K(x) does not necessarily imply. The article seems to be describing contraposition, ~K(x) -> ~T(x) or what is not known to be true is false, which is logically equivalent to K(x) -> T(x). It should read something like "Therefore, by contraposition, what is not known to be true is false." 76.158.149.245 (talk) 23:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)