‘Knowing-that’ vs. ‘Knowing-wh’

Though there is a huge amount of the so-called epistemic logics that deal with propositional attitudes, i.e., sentences form “a knows P”, their ‘wh-cousins’ who what P is”, which Ps are Qs”, etc., have been, to best my knowledge, almost neglected. A similar disproportion can be observed between analysis Yes-No questions, has been under scrutiny many erotetic logics, and Wh-questions dealt just by few authors. To fill this gap, we analysed in Transparent Intensional Logic (TIL) adjusted Gentzen’s system natural deduction TIL language processing; thus, our question-answering answer not only questions but also derive answers Wh-questions. In paper, I am going apply these results containing ‘knowing-wh’ constituent. addition, will analyse relation ‘knowing-that’ ‘knowing-wh’. For instance, if Mayor Ostrava Mr Macura, logically Ostrava? Or, vice versa, do assumptions entail Macura? case rational human agents seem no-doubt YES, perhaps rather surprising general negative. We specify rules for deriving knowing-that knowing-wh, software agent resource bounded, it does its ontology necessary answer. The goal paper specification rules. Hence, when applying into design multi-agent composed resource-bounded agents, compute inferable accounts explicit knowledge inferential abilities.