# Re: Labelling propositions

Michael Genesereth <mrg@sunburn.stanford.edu>
```Date: Mon, 17 Sep 1990 18:57:20 PDT
From: Michael Genesereth <mrg@sunburn.stanford.edu>
To: macgreg@venera.isi.edu
Cc: interlingua@vaxa.isi.edu
Subject: Re: Labelling propositions
In-reply-to: Your message of Mon, 17 Sep 90 15:55:13 PDT
Message-id: <CMM.0.88.653623040.mrg@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU>
```
```Bob,

Right.  We talked about this a little in santa barbara as you may
recall.  Two things

First of all, we can axiomatize things like probability:

(= (probability `(and ,\$p ,\$q)) (probability `(and ,\$q ,\$p)))

Secondly,  At the sb meetingb, several people proposed a function
(called, say, CONCEPT) that maps a sentence into its intension.
With this, we could do what you want as follows

(= (probability (concept '(black raven))) 0.3)

I have not figured out just what those intensions are, hoping
that someone with more intuition on those things could ghelp
me out.  Len??

Well, IF we can agree on intensions, then I see nothing wrong
with having our believes relation take an intension as second
argument.

(believes joe (concept '(black raven)))

And, if you guys like, we could even make these things operators
so that the hated quote does not appear

(cbelieves joe (black raven))

Of course, to do that we would need to agree on a method
for quantifying in to formulas.  Perhaps free variables are
quantified outside teh scope of the cbelieves.  I would
appreciate some suggestions here.

mrg

```