To: |
"[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
---|---|

From: |
"Sharma, Ravi" <Ravi.Sharma@xxxxxxxxxxx> |

Date: |
Tue, 4 Mar 2008 21:48:08 -0700 |

Message-id: |
<D09FFCFB3952074082D4280BC24EAFA8ED3A9A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |

Sean (01) Sean (02) Then how do we determine in math whether the axioms or some math from them is the right one? Right for the practical or theoretical but "real" problem> Astrophysics and Particle Physics seem to require higher math. Many times it is Years before great math works find demonstrable results. Wigner's application of Group theory and representations to Quantum Mechanics and nuclear physics are an example. For engineering sufficiency is generally the measure rather than completeness. So is the case for many software solutions. Thanks. (03) Ravi (04) (Dr. Ravi Sharma) Senior Enterprise Architect (05) Vangent, Inc. Technology Excellence Center (TEC) (06) 8618 Westwood Center Drive, Suite 310, Vienna VA 22182 (o) 703-827-0638, (c) 313-204-1740 www.vangent.com Opinions of presenter do not necessarily constitute any approval. (07) -----Original Message----- From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Barker, Sean (UK) Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 9:21 AM To: [ontolog-forum] Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Search engine for the ontology (08) 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. (09) The objection to ontologism from the mathematical point of view is that alternative choices of axioms give alternative mathematical systems. The non-Euclidean geometries are variations on the fifth postulate that all non-parallel lines meet. The way I was taught, say, ring theory, was that it was group theory with additional axioms. That is, the mathematical system you get is dependent on the axioms you use. Similarly, the logic you get depends on the axioms, such as the number of truth values you choose. (010) Given that systems can contradict each other if they have different axioms, it is difficult to see that a single meta system could derive all mathematical principles, unless the principles themselves are not sufficient to detail all mathematical systems. This is rather like saying all English words can be written with the 26 letters of the alphabet - it is not something that allows us to generate all valid English without generating a larger number of invalid ones. (011) As a matter of engineering practice, for complex products, there is no single product breakdown system that adequately represents a product. For example, the assembly breakdown structure of an aircraft defines the components that make up an assembly stage, and we can ship these round or store them as we need. However, this breakdown is no use when we look at the installed systems, which are proper subsets of multiple assembly stages, and which must be functionally analysed as a whole. (012) Sean Barker BAE SYSTEMS - Advanced Technology Centre Bristol, UK + |

Previous by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] orthogonal, Pat Hayes |
---|---|

Next by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Search engine for the ontology, Barker, Sean (UK) |

Previous by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Search engine for the ontology, Chris Menzel |

Next by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Search engine for the ontology, Barker, Sean (UK) |

Indexes: | [Date]
[Thread]
[Top]
[All Lists] |