[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Terminology Question concerning WebArchitecture and

To: "Chris Menzel" <cmenzel@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 19:52:25 +0700
Message-id: <c09b00eb0707260552n5f54b8eau7011c7d1daa77090@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi Christ
thanks for pointers

Well, there are ontologies in which there is a class/category NOTHING or
NULL which is the complement of the class/category THING or ENTITY.  The
extension of the latter class, of course, includes everything, and that
of the former, of course, includes nothing, i.e., it is empty.

would you be able to point to some examples? I'd be interested but cant think of any (uh)

> If Ontology is rooted in Aristotelian 'Categories', could you please
> point me to the Category or equivalent artifact that represents
> 'nothing' for the purpose of scientific reasoning.

The only notion of "nothing" that is necessary for scientific reasoning
is the logical concept of negation. 

Are you sure? Are you saying that there is no value in a category called nothing as such?
How do you know?

A fine (and inexpensive) basic intro text is Wilfrid Hodges'
_Logic_.  Good, more advanced texts include _Metalogic_ by Geoffrey
Hunter (also inexpensive), Enderton's _A Mathematical Introduction to
Logic_, and Mendelson's _Introduction to Mathematical Logic_.  John Sowa
has recommended Tarski's classic _Introduction to Logic and to the
Methodology of the Deductive Sciences_, and John himself has a nice
overview of basic logic, set theory, and abstract algebra on his web
site: http://www.jfsowa.com/logic/math.htm .

Thanks for the recommendations - As mentioned before, I am reasonably familiar with 'logic'
(in the reasoning sense) , as expressed in natural language -  I have studied to some extent the resources above, including John's website which I use regularly as reference
 But I do not find the much about 'nothing'/ (double uh)

CM To the contrary, classical western thinking has accommodated the concept
quite robustly.

1(  Is there an ontological category called nothing? If Ontology is rooted in Aristotelian 'Categories', could you please point me to the category where 'nothing' fits in? If not, how can
classical western thinking, based on aristotelian logic,  have a logical role for 'nothing'
Is this question not worth an answer perhaps? sorry if it is too stupid a question

2) If classical western thinking has accoomodated for it quite robustly, is there a body of knowledge (rather than the absence of it) as evidence of what you say?

Thanks a lot


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    (01)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>