Pat and Patrick, (01)
I agree that the hypothesis is either trivial or false. (02)
PC> What specifically isn't feasible? Specifically, what
> cannot be done? (03)
PH> Locate a set of basic concepts sufficient that all
> others can be derived from the base set by writing
> definitions. (04)
To test the hypothesis, I checked the _Longman Dictionary of
Contemporary English_, which uses a small defining vocabulary.
And I looked for the term 'quantum mechanics'. (05)
That term was not in the dictionary, but it did have two
related terms: (06)
quantum. _tech_ (esp. in PHYSICS) a fixed amount. (07)
quantum theory. the idea that ENERGY (3) travels in
fixed amounts (QUANTA). (08)
Some points to note: (09)
1. The word 'tech' in italics is a metalevel term that
indicates the word 'quantum' is technical. (010)
2. The capitalized words PHYSICS, ENERGY, AND QUANTA
are not in the defining list. (011)
3. The parenthesized 3 indicates that the third
definition of 'energy' is being used. (012)
Following is definition 3 of 'energy': (013)
the power which does work and drives machines:
_atomic / electrical energy / the energy of the sun_ (014)
These definitions may be useful for human beings who
have no knowledge of the subject (say, quantum mechanics)
and want to get a vague notion of what the term means. (015)
They might also be useful for an analogy engine that
searches for patterns of associations among a family
of terms. See, for example, (016)
http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/analog.htm
Analogical Reasoning (017)
But if you (or a computer program) need to do any kind
of serious reasoning about these terms, you have to study
physics. Any associations that a human or a computer
picks up from such a dictionary are going to be *wrong*.
They will have to be corrected by a method that is far
more complex than writing one-line definitions in terms
of a small vocabulary. (018)
In physics, for example, the words 'power' and 'energy'
have clearly distinct definitions, and it is false to
say that energy is power. (019)
I consider these examples to be sufficient *proof* that
the idea of using a small defining vocabulary is useless
for defining anything beyond vague associations. Anybody
who needs further convincing should check other technical
terms in Longman's. (020)
John (021)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (022)
|