I am going to break my own plea to drop the subject by asking Chris if both
of these senses - the Model of an airplane, as well as a Tarskian Model,
exhibit some "lossy"-ness? (01)
Model, now matter how it is used, seems to be some sort of extended
implementation from an original (whether it is an abstraction, like a
mathematical, computer, or physical model - or some instantiation of a
series of axioms). In doing this extension, something is lost from the
original (in the case of the model plane, it is reduced in size,
functionality, and fidelity - in the case of a Tarskian model it is reduced
from an ideal state explained in axioms to something that can change and
lose some of its adherence to those axioms). (02)
But it might be better to not make this observation . . . (03)
Chuck (04)
ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 02/09/2007 02:01:57 PM: (05)
> On Feb 9, 2007, at 12:26 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
> > ...I think (as I said in
> > an email response a few days ago) that the usages
> > of "model" in "model theory" and "modelling"
> > (respectively realization and prototype) are at
> > best unrelated, and at worst almost directly
> > opposite in meaning.
>
> I guess I don't see that, Pat. Don't, say, a physical model of a
> Boeing 777 and my Tarskian model of the faculty and administration at
> Texas A&M both represent (hence, in some sense, "model") relevant
> structural features of complex real-world things?
>
> -chris (06)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (07)
|