Abstract

There is an error in the completeness proof for the {λ, =} part of FOIL-K. The error occurs in Section 4, in the text following the proof of Corollary 4.7, and concerns the definition of the interpretation I on relation symbols. Before this point in the paper, for each object variable v an equivalence class v has been defined, and for each intension variable f a function f has been defined. Then the following definition is given for a relation symbol P : v1, v2, . . . , f1, f2, . . . ∈ I(P )(Γ) just in case there are w1, w2, . . . in d(Γ) with wi ∈ vi such that P (w1, w2, . . . , f1, f2, . . .) ∈ Γ. It was pointed out by Torben Brauner that we could have f1 and g1 being the same function, but also have P (w1, w2, . . . , f1, f2, . . .) ∈ Γ without having P (w1, w2, . . . , g1, f2, . . .) ∈ Γ. Our solution is to modify the definition of the model, rather artificially, so that if f and g are the same function, then f and g are syntactically the same intension variable. This is done as follows. First, arbitrarily choose some object variable w, and its corresponding equivalence class w. For each intension variable f we define a disambiguation world ˆ