Par wrote > You only
> get the practical consequences you want when the system is
> using its internal formalisms coherently with their intended
> semantics. (01)
Can I reverse that - the only way to get the practical
consequences you want is to choose a formal system with semantics that
are coherent with the functions of the system? (02)
Even then I'm not entirely comfortable with that statement. In
some cases it may be more convenient to change the system I use to get
the results more easily. If I have a drawing board, I can work out the
intersection of two lines quite easily by inspection. Without a drawing
board, I may find it more convenient to solve as a set of simultaneous
equations, and on a computer, by matrix inversion using the adjoint. (03)
Sean Barker
0117 302 8184 (04)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pat Hayes [mailto:phayes@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: 31 August 2007 17:42
> To: Barker, Sean (UK)
> Cc: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: RE: [ontolog-forum] Current Semantic Web Layer pizza
> (was ckae)
>
>
> *** WARNING ***
>
> This mail has originated outside your organization, either
> from an external partner or the Global Internet.
> Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
>
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Pat
> >> Hayes
> >> Sent: 30 August 2007 19:09
> >> To: Barker, Sean (UK)
> >> Cc: [ontolog-forum]
> >> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Current Semantic Web Layer
> pizza (was
> >> ckae)
> >>
> >> >John
> >> >
> >> > Thanks for your patience. My view, more precisely, is
> >> that anything
> >> >called semantics must be grounded in pragmatics to make sense.
> >>
> >> BUt that is clearly wrong, since there are semantic theories of
> >> wide application which do not refer to pragmatics. I think
> you state
> >> your case too strongly.
> >>
> >> >If semantics has a use, it is in creating systems of terms, and
> >> >structuring their differentia.
> >>
> >> ? No, it is is specifying the meanings of formal expressions.
> >
> >The problem I have that I can't see "the meaning of formal
> expressions"
> >stops being a circular definition until one agrees what effect they
> >have
> >- or at least, when one does something in the world as a
> consequence of
> >these formal expressions.
>
> Well, wait a second. Of course you are entitled to take the
> view that only the pragmatic consequences really matter (to
> you), but again you overstate your case. To accuse the
> entirety of formal semantic theory for the last 60 years as
> being 'circular', only exhibits your ignorance, I am afraid.
> It may be of little interest to a hard-nosed manager, but its
> certainly not *circular*.
>
> >It is interesting (intellectually) to know that 1 + 1 = 0,
> but it is of
> >practical consequence when I turn lights on and off.
>
> Nice example. If your light controller uses any kind of
> digital circuitry, then it matters a lot that 1+1 mod 2 =0 in
> binary. It mattered to the designers of the chips, and if the
> controller is anything much more than a switch then it
> probably mattered to the programmer of the ROM code. You only
> get the practical consequences you want when the system is
> using its internal formalisms coherently with their intended
> semantics. Arithmetic might seem like rather piffling
> semantics, but an even more piffling semantic error made NASA
> miss Mars not long ago.
>
> Pat
>
> >
> >Sean Barker
> >Bristol, UK
> >
> >This mail is publicly posted to a distribution list as part of a
> >process of public discussion, any automatically generated
> statements to
> >the contrary non-withstanding. It is the opinion of the author, and
> >does not represent an official company view.
> >
> >
> >********************************************************************
> >This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
> >recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
> >recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
> >You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
> >distribute its contents to any other person.
> >********************************************************************
>
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home
> 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
> Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
> FL 32502 (850)291 0667 cell
> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>
>
> (05)
********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
******************************************************************** (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)
|