John, (01)
If you wish to be precise about defining logic, quoting St. John is not
the way to proceed. That is not what he was talking about at all. (02)
Regards,
-- Jeffrey Schiffel (03)
-----Original Message-----
From: John F. Sowa [mailto:sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 9:16 AM
To: patrick@xxxxxxxxxxx; [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] What is logic? (04)
Patrick, (05)
I changed the subject line of this thread. (06)
JFS>> Ontology and logic are different subjects. But I
>> would add that *every* precise declarative notation that is >>
capable of making statements that are judged true or false >> *is* a
version of logic.
>>
>> UML diagrams, for example, are a version of logic. The >>
declarative subset of natural languages forms a version of >> logic --
and in fact, NL (actually Greek) was Aristotle's >> inspiration for the
first formal logic. And *every* >> statement in *every* version of
logic that anyone has >> ever invented can be translated into natural
language.
>>
>> So anyone who is doing any work on ontology is stating >> their
results in some version of logic (but possibly in >> a rather imprecise
and insufficiently understood version). (07)
PD> My, what a large definition of logic you have. (08)
That's the traditional definition, which goes back to Aristotle.
Historically, logic evolved from language. Its name comes from the
Greek logos, which means word or reason and includes any language or
method of reasoning used in any of the -ology fields of science and
engineering. Aristotle developed formal logic as a systematized method
for reasoning about the meanings expressed in ordinary language. (09)
In modern terms, a logic may be defined as any precise notation for
expressing statements that can be judged true or false. To clarify the
notion of "judging," Tarski defined a model as a set of entities and a
set of relationships among those entities.
Model theory is a systematic method for evaluating the truth of a
statement in terms of a model. (010)
But Tarski quoted Aristotle as a basis for his approach, and he claimed
that he was formalizing the informal methods. (011)
John the Evangelist had an even larger definition: (012)
"In the beginning was the logos, and the logos was with God,
and God was the logos. It was in the beginning with God.
All things (panta) came into being through it, and without it
nothing that has come to be came into being." (013)
In short, being (to on) depends on the logos. Therefore, the study of
being (ontology) must depend on logic (the study of the logos). (014)
John (015)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (016)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (017)
|