ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

## Re: [ontolog-forum] Existentials (WAS: Re: brainwaves (WAS: to concept o

 To: "[ontolog-forum]" "John F. Sowa" Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:17:15 -0500 <4762906B.2070005@xxxxxxxxxxx>
 ```Pat and Pat,    (01) PH> If its functional it must be existential (in your sense). > If you are seriously worried about terminology, a good term > for these might be Skolem assertions.    (02) I agree that would be useful for those people who have heard of Skolem and Skolemizing. But the term 'functional dependency' which has been used in the database field for over 30 years, depends only on some acquaintance with functions.    (03) I also agree that not every A-E quantifier pattern implies a unique existential. However, it does imply that there exists something.    (04) Therefore, it would be reasonable to call it an 'implicit existential'. A functional dependency would make a stronger point that the implicit existential term happens to imply a unique individual.    (05) And by the way, in the CGIF notation for Common Logic, I used a vertical bar to mark functional dependencies, since CG notation is basically relational rather than functional. That also makes it possible to mark more than one functional dependency in the same relation.    (06) For example, the divide relation takes four arguments -- a dividend x, a divisor y, a quotient q, and a remainder r:    (07) (divide x y q r)    (08) In CGIF notation, a vertical bar could be used to indicate that the last two arguments are functionally dependent on the first two:    (09) (divide x y | q r)    (010) This would be equivalent to a conjunction of two functions:    (011) (quotient x y | q) (remainder x y | r)    (012) An employee relation in a database might have many functional dependencies:    (013) (employee emp_id | name department manager salary)    (014) A relation with many arguments might have criss-crossing or transitive functional dependencies. In CGIF notation, those could be written as a conjunction of several relations with bars to indicate the dependencies.    (015) John    (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) ```
 Current Thread Re: [ontolog-forum] brainwaves (WAS: to concept or not to concept, is this a question?), (continued) Re: [ontolog-forum] brainwaves (WAS: to concept or not to concept, is this a question?), Pat Hayes Re: [ontolog-forum] brainwaves (WAS: to concept or not to concept, is this a question?), Bill Andersen Re: [ontolog-forum] brainwaves (WAS: to concept or not to concept, is this a question?), John F. Sowa Re: [ontolog-forum] brainwaves (WAS: to concept or not to concept, is this a question?), Bill Andersen Re: [ontolog-forum] brainwaves (WAS: to concept or not to concept, is this a question?), Pat Hayes Re: [ontolog-forum] brainwaves (WAS: to concept or not to concept, is this a question?), Bill Andersen Re: [ontolog-forum] brainwaves (WAS: to concept or not to concept, is this a question?), Patrick Cassidy Re: [ontolog-forum] brainwaves (WAS: to concept or not to concept, is this a question?), John F. Sowa Re: [ontolog-forum] brainwaves (WAS: to concept or not to concept, is this a question?), Gary Berg-Cross [ontolog-forum] Existentials (WAS: Re: brainwaves (WAS: to concept or not to concept, is this a question?), Pat Hayes Re: [ontolog-forum] Existentials (WAS: Re: brainwaves (WAS: to concept or not to concept, is this a question?), John F. Sowa <= Re: [ontolog-forum] Existentials (WAS: Re: brainwaves (WAS: to concept or not to concept, is this a question?), Patrick Cassidy Re: [ontolog-forum] brainwaves (WAS: to concept or not to concept, is this a question?), Patrick Cassidy