This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)