ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

## Re: [ontolog-forum] Visual Complexity

 To: "[ontolog-forum]" "John F. Sowa" Thu, 08 Feb 2007 01:52:57 -0500 <45CAC8C9.4080609@xxxxxxxxxxx>
 ```Chris,    (01) I was just trying to express, not very clearly, that there is just one mereological totality of Bill + Chuck:    (02) JFS>> In mereology, Bill and Chuck are each parts of the collection >> that consists of Bill and Chuck. You can call that pair C, >> but C is not a new entity. It is just Bill and Chuck.    (03) CM> John, that is not correct. The mereological sum of Bill > and Chuck -- call it Bill+Chuck -- is typically defined in > mereology as the smallest thing that has Bill and Chuck as > parts. (Equivalently, it is the unique thing X such that > anything that overlaps X either overlaps Bill or overlaps > Chuck.) It is not "just Bill and Chuck". It is a third > thing distinct from the two of them.    (04) The crucial issue is how many potential "entities" exist.    (05) > And in mereology you have Bill, Chuck, and Bill+Chuck.    (06) No. The totality consists of just the sum of Bill & Chuck.    (07) If you want to count the total number of distinguishable "entities", you have to include all the possible ways of extracting and combining some parts of Bill plus some parts of Chuck. (I apologize to Bill & Chuck for the gory images this discussion might conjure up, but you don't have to do the extraction physically -- you can identify the slices without actually cutting them).    (08) A better example is to consider France, which was subdivided into provinces and later subdivided into departments. There is only one totality, which is France, and the different ways of subdividing it are potential parts.    (09) With mereology, there is no clear answer to how many parts there are if you have a continuous area or solid. All you can say is that with one method of dividing you get N parts and with another method you get M parts.    (010) But with set theory, you create a new entity with each "CONS" -- to use a LISP term. In fact, that is one of the crucial measures of LISP space allocation -- how many CONSes are used in a given construction.    (011) > By contrast, in mereology, the sum of Bill and Bill+Chuck > is just Bill+Chuck; likewise, the sum of Bill's left arm > and Bill is just Bill. In set theory, as you note, you > get the distinct entities {Bill, {Bill, Chuck}} and > {BillsLeftArm, Bill}. But in mereology and set theory > alike, the sum/set of Bill and Chuck is a third thing > distinct from Bill and Chuck.    (012) I agree with this, but I think that the crucial difference between mereology and set theory shows up when you start dividing things. Set theory starts with zero or more urelements and builds more entities from there. Mereology never goes beyond a given totality, but it may subdivide it very far, especially if that totality is continuous.    (013) John    (014) _________________________________________________________________ Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/ Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (015) ```
 Current Thread Re: [ontolog-forum] Visual Complexity, (continued) Re: [ontolog-forum] Visual Complexity, John F. Sowa Re: [ontolog-forum] Visual Complexity, Christopher Menzel Re: [ontolog-forum] Visual Complexity, Pat Hayes Re: [ontolog-forum] Visual Complexity, tom beckman Re: [ontolog-forum] Visual Complexity, Charles D Turnitsa Message not availableRe: [ontolog-forum] Visual Complexity, andersen Re: [ontolog-forum] Visual Complexity, Sergei Nirenburg Re: [ontolog-forum] Visual Complexity, andersen Re: [ontolog-forum] Visual Complexity, John F. Sowa Re: [ontolog-forum] Visual Complexity, Christopher Menzel Re: [ontolog-forum] Visual Complexity, John F. Sowa <= Re: [ontolog-forum] Visual Complexity, Chris Menzel Re: [ontolog-forum] Visual Complexity, John F. Sowa [ontolog-forum] UNSUBSCRIBE, jdelre Re: [ontolog-forum] UNSUBSCRIBE, Horning, Jim Re: [ontolog-forum] UNSUBSCRIBE, Christopher Menzel Re: [ontolog-forum] Visual Complexity, Cassidy, Patrick J. Re: [ontolog-forum] Visual Complexity, Christopher Menzel Re: [ontolog-forum] Visual Complexity, Pat Hayes Re: [ontolog-forum] Visual Complexity, Pat Hayes Re: [ontolog-forum] Visual Complexity, Pat Hayes