consistent - Sigma Knowledge base Browser

appearance as argument number 1

(instance consistent BinaryPredicate)	Merge.kif 17256-17256	consistent is an instance of binary predicate
(instance consistent SymmetricRelation)	Merge.kif 17257-17257	consistent is an instance of symmetric relation
(domain consistent 1 Formula)	Merge.kif 17258-17258	The number 1 argument of consistent is an instance of formula
(domain consistent 2 Formula)	Merge.kif 17259-17259	The number 2 argument of consistent is an instance of formula
(documentation consistent EnglishLanguage "(consistent ?PROP1 ?PROP2) means that the two Propositions ?PROP1 and ?PROP2 are consistent with one another, i.e. it is possible for both of them to be true at the same time.")	Merge.kif 17260-17262	The number 2 argument of consistent is an instance of formula

appearance as argument number 2

(format EnglishLanguage consistent "%2 is %n a consistent of %1")	domainEnglishFormat.kif 534-534
(format ChineseTraditionalLanguage consistent "%2 %n 是 %1 的 consistent ")	domainEnglishFormat.kif 535-535
(format ChineseLanguage consistent "%2 %n 是 %1 的 consistent")	domainEnglishFormat.kif 536-536
(termFormat EnglishLanguage consistent "consistent")	domainEnglishFormat.kif 16698-16698
(termFormat ChineseTraditionalLanguage consistent "一貫")	domainEnglishFormat.kif 16699-16699
(termFormat ChineseLanguage consistent "一贯")	domainEnglishFormat.kif 16700-16700

antecedent

(=>
    (and
        (instance ?AGREEMENT Contract)
        (partyToAgreement ?AGENT1 ?AGREEMENT)
        (partyToAgreement ?AGENT2 ?AGREEMENT)
        (instance ?PROC IntentionalProcess)
        (agent ?PROC ?AGENT1)
        (realization ?PROC ?PROP)
        (containsFormula ?PROP ?FORM1)
        (containsFormula ?AGREEMENT ?FORM2)
        (not
            (consistent ?FORM1 ?FORM2)))
    (modalAttribute
        (exists (?LEGAL)
            (and
                (instance ?LEGAL LegalAction)
                (plaintiff ?LEGAL ?AGENT2)
                (defendant ?LEGAL ?AGENT1))) Possibility))

If All of the following hold: (1) X is an instance of contract (2) X is a party to agreement of Y (3) X is a party to agreement of Z (4) W is an instance of intentional process (5) Y is an agent of W (6) W expresses the content of V (7) V contains the formula U (8) X contains the formula T (9) T is not a consistent of U, then the statement there exists S such that S is an instance of legal action, Z is the plaintiff in S, and Y is the defendant in S has the modal force of possibility

consequent

(=> (instance ?DIS Disagreeing) (exists (?A1 ?A2 ?STATE1 ?STATE2 ?STMT1 ?STMT2) (and (subProcess ?STATE1 ?DIS) (subProcess ?STATE2 ?DIS) (agent ?STATE1 ?A1) (agent ?STATE2 ?A2) (not (equal ?A1 ?A2)) (containsFormula ?STATE1 ?STMT1) (containsFormula ?STATE2 ?STMT2) (not (consistent ?STMT1 ?STMT2)))))	Merge.kif 13458-13471	If X is an instance of disagreeing, then All of the following hold: (1) there exist Y, Z,, , W,, , V,, , U (2) T such that W is a subprocess of X (3) V is a subprocess of X (4) Y is an agent of W (5) Z is an agent of V (6) equal Y (7) Z (8) W contains the formula U (9) V contains the formula T (10) T is not a consistent of U
(=> (instance ?OOP OutOfPolicyAccom) (exists (?ORG ?POL ?PROP1 ?PROP2) (and (instance ?ORG Organization) (instance ?POL Policy) (policyOwner ?ORG ?POL) (containsFormula ?POL ?PROP1) (containsFormula ?OOP ?PROP2) (not (consistent ?PROP1 ?PROP2)))))	TravelPolicies.kif 1329-1339	If X is an instance of OutOfPolicyAccom, then All of the following hold: (1) there exist Y, Z,, , W (2) V such that Y is an instance of organization (3) Z is an instance of policy (4) Y enacts policy Z (5) Z contains the formula W (6) X contains the formula V (7) V is not a consistent of W