Carl Hewitt (http://carlhewitt.info)

Please see Carl Hewitt's homepage.

Carl Hewitt is Emeritus in the Electrical Engineering and Computer Science department at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). He obtained his PhD in mathematics at MIT in 1971, under the supervision of Seymour Papert (adviser), Marvin Minsky, and Mike Paterson. He is known for his work on the following:
* the design of Planner (a pioneering programming language based on plans invoked by assertions and goals)
* comparative schematology
* knowledge representation
* the Actor model of concurrency
* ActorScript(TM) concurrent programming language
* the Scientific Community Metaphor
* automatic storage reclamation (garbage collection)
* Organizations of Restricted Generality(TM)
* participatory semantics with Carl Manning
* organizational commitment
* strongly paraconsistent logic
* privacy-friendly client cloud computing
* participatory behavioral model checking
* semantic integration
* Ontological Natural Language(TM)

Please see Corruption of Wikipedia

Please see the article on Carl Hewitt

Please see the following:  Corruption of Wikipedia

For further information, go to Corruption of the Wikipedia.

Organizational Computing is a computational model for using the principles, practices, and methods of human organizations. Organizations of Restricted Generality (ORGs) have been proposed as a foundation for Organizational Computing. ORGs are the natural extension of Web Services, which are rapidly becoming the overwhelming standard for distributed computing and application interoperability in Organizational Computing. The thesis of this paper is that large-scale Organizational Computing requires reflection and strong paraconsistency for organizational practices, policies, and norms.Strong paraconsistency is required because the practices, policies, and norms of large scale Organizational Computing are pervasively inconsistent.

By the standard rules of logic, anything and everything can be inferred from an inconsistency, e.g., “The moon is made of green cheese.” The purpose of strongly paraconsistent logic is to develop principles of reasoning so that irrelevances cannot be inferred from the fact of inconsistency while preserving all natural inferences that do not explode in the face of inconsistency.Reflection is required in order that the practices, policies, and norms can mutually refer to each other and make inferences. Reflection and strong paraconsistency are important properties of Direct Logic [Hewitt 2007] for large software systems.

Gödel first formalized and proved that it is not possible to decide all mathematical questions by inference in his 1st incompleteness theorem. But the incompleteness theorem (as generalized by Rosser) relies on the assumption of consistency! This paper proves a generalization of the Gödel/Rosser incompleteness theorem: strongly paraconsistent theories of Direct Logic are incomplete. However, there is a further consequence. Although the semi-classical mathematical fragment of Direct Logic is evidently consistent, since the Gödelian paradoxical proposition is self-provable, every strongly paraconsistent theory in Direct Logic has an inconsistency!

 External Links

Carl Hewitt

Logical Necessity of Inconsistency

References

• Carl Hewitt (2006a) The repeated demise of logic programming and why it will be reincarnated What Went Wrong and Why: Lessons from AI Research and Applications. Technical Report SS-06-08. AAAI Press. March 2006.
• Carl Hewitt (2006b) What is Commitment? Physical, Organizational, and Social COIN@AAMAS’06.
• Carl Hewitt (2007a) What is Commitment? Physical, Organizational, and Social (Revised) Pablo Noriega .et. al. editors. LNAI 4386. Springer-Verlag. 2007.
• Carl Hewitt (2007b) Large-scale Organizational Computing requires Unstratified Paraconsistency and Reflection COIN@AAMAS’07.
• Carl Hewitt (2008a). The downfall of mental agents in the implementation of large software systems What went wrong? Special Issue on “What Went Wrong and Why” Dan Shapiro and Mehmet Göker (eds.) AAAI Magazine. Summer 2008 (to appear).
• Carl Hewitt (2008b). ORGs (Organizations of Restricted Generality): Strong Paraconsistency and Participatory Behavioral Model Checking Discussed at MALLOW’07.
• Carl Hewitt (2008c) Common sense for concurrency and strong paraconsistency using unstratified inference and reflection Discussed in seminars at Edinburgh LFCS 11th September 2007 and Stanford Logic Group 26 September 2007.
• Carl Hewitt (2008d) Large-scale Organizational Computing requires Unstratified Reflection and Strong Paraconsistency Coordination, Organizations, Institutions, and Norms in Agent Systems III. Jaime Sichman, Pablo Noriega, Julian Padget and Sascha Ossowski (ed.). Springer-Verlag

Organizational Computing is a computational model for using the principles, practices, and methods of human organizations. Organizations of Restricted Generality (ORGs) have been proposed as a foundation for Organizational Computing. ORGs are the natural extension of Web Services, which are rapidly becoming the overwhelming standard for distributed computing and application interoperability in Organizational Computing. The thesis of this paper is that large-scale Organizational Computing requires reflection and strong paraconsistency for organizational practices, policies, and norms.

Strong paraconsistency is required because the practices, policies, and norms of large scale Organizational Computing are pervasively inconsistent. By the standard rules of logic, anything and everything can be inferred from an inconsistency, e.g., “The moon is made of green cheese.” The purpose of strongly paraconsistent logic is to develop principles of reasoning so that irrelevances cannot be inferred from the fact of inconsistency while preserving all natural inferences that do not explode in the face of inconsistency.

Reflection is required in order that the practices, policies, and norms can mutually refer to each other and make inferences. Reflection and strong paraconsistency are important properties of Direct Logic [Hewitt 2007] for large software systems. Gödel first formalized and proved that it is not possible to decide all mathematical questions by inference in his 1st incompleteness theorem. But the incompleteness theorem (as generalized by Rosser) relies on the assumption of consistency! This paper proves a generalization of the Gödel/Rosser incompleteness theorem: strongly paraconsistent theories of Direct Logic are incomplete. However, there is a further consequence. Although the semi-classical mathematical fragment of Direct Logic is evidently consistent, since the Gödelian paradoxical proposition is self-provable, every strongly paraconsistent theory in Direct Logic has an inconsistency!

References

• Carl Hewitt (2006a) The repeated demise of logic programming and why it will be reincarnated What Went Wrong and Why: Lessons from AI Research and Applications. Technical Report SS-06-08. AAAI Press. March 2006.
• Carl Hewitt (2006b) What is Commitment? Physical, Organizational, and Social COIN@AAMAS'06.
• Carl Hewitt (2007a) What is Commitment? Physical, Organizational, and Social (Revised) Pablo Noriega .et. al. editors. LNAI 4386. Springer-Verlag. 2007.
• Carl Hewitt (2007b) Large-scale Organizational Computing requires Unstratified Paraconsistency and Reflection COIN@AAMAS'07.
• Carl Hewitt (2008a). The downfall of mental agents in the implementation of large software systems What went wrong? Special Issue on “What Went Wrong and Why” Dan Shapiro and Mehmet Göker (eds.) AAAI Magazine. Summer 2008 (to appear).
• Carl Hewitt (2008b). ORGs (Organizations of Restricted Generality): Strong Paraconsistency and Participatory Behavioral Model Checking Discussed at MALLOW’07.
• Carl Hewitt (2008c) Common sense for concurrency and strong paraconsistency using unstratified inference and reflection Discussed in seminars at Edinburgh LFCS 11th September 2007 and Stanford Logic Group 26 September 2007.
• Carl Hewitt (2008d) Large-scale Organizational Computing requires Unstratified Reflection and Strong Paraconsistency Coordination, Organizations, Institutions, and Norms in Agent Systems III. Jaime Sichman, Pablo Noriega, Julian Padget and Sascha Ossowski (ed.). Springer-Verlag

Articles

• For further information, go to History of Logic Programming.
• For further information, gol to Logical Necessity of Inconsistency.

Sites

• For further information, go to Carl Hewitt on Citizendium.
• For further information, go to Carl Hewitt on Blog.com.
• For further information, go to Carl Hewitt on Windows Live.
• For further information, go to Carl Hewitt on WordPress.
• For further information, go to Carl Hewitt on Blogger.

For further information, go to Carl Hewitt Seminars.

For further information, go to Carl Hewitt Academic Biography.

For further information, go to Carl Hewitt Publications.