Chris, (01)
I'm glad that we agree on that point: (02)
JFS>> A set of statements that people can read, write, or store
>> in a computer corresponds to version #1. That is more likely
>> to be the object of attention in most discussions on this list. (03)
CM> Agreed. As with "ontology", there is no overriding reason
> why "theory" couldn't be appropriated from its discipline of
> origin and defined to mean "set of axioms", so long as that
> definition is clear and well-advertised. (04)
I was just suggesting that we throw in a few redundant words
to clarify the issue whenever the distinction is important. (05)
But I disagree with calling the group of 20th-century
logicians "the discipline of origin" for the word 'theory'. (06)
According to the 10th edition of the MW Collegiate, the
word 'theory' entered the English language in 1597, and
it was around in Greek for much longer. That dictionary
lists 6 numbered word senses, some of which have two or
three subsenses. Not a single one of those senses or
subsenses says or implies that a theory is "the deductive
closure of some axioms". (07)
The last definition (6c) is "a body of theorems presenting
a concise systematic view of some subject." (08)
That's the closest one to what we're talking about, but
it's rather muddled. It doesn't say anything about the
axioms from which the theorems were derived, and the
word 'concise' seems to rule out the infinite set of
implications. (09)
John (010)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (011)
|