ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] mKR (was Thing and Class)

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Richard H. McCullough" <rhm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 13:28:09 -0700
Message-id: <ED50779CFE4B4A8FA4F9CC1A946BD7C0@rhm8200>
Chris    (01)

I hesitate to proceed, because I don't want to get into
a long-winded discussion. I will try to be brief and
direct.  Further discussion may need to be taken
off-list.    (02)

My comments are interspersed below, prefixed with
*****.
Dick McCullough
Ayn Rand do speak od mKR done;
mKE do enhance od Real Intelligence done;
knowledge := man do identify od existent done;
knowledge haspart proposition list;
http://mKRmKE.org/    (03)

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Christopher Menzel" <cmenzel@xxxxxxxx>
To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2008 11:28 AM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] mKR (was Thing and Class)    (04)


> On Sep 12, 2008, at 8:43 PM, Richard H. McCullough wrote:
>> Chris
>>
>> I don't have all the answers at this point, but I want to discuss
>> a few things, to try and establish some understanding between
>> us.
>>
>> Starting with (b), just because it's easier.  mKR has
>>    if-then-else-fi  iff  implies
>>    and or not
>>    quantifiers: no a any the some all every
>>    for quantifier loops similar to many logic languages
>> I don't know why you say mKR is completely lacking
>> the apparatus of propositional and first-order logic.
>
> My apologies, I missed those, but a worry right off here is that you
> are giving what appears to be a computational, or procedural,
> semantics to the quantifiers.  Is that your intention?
***** yes, "procedural semantics" sounds right to me
> That is a very
> different kind of semantics than the usual Tarski-style, declarative
> semantics typically given to KR languages.  This is *just* the sort of
> thing that an explicit formal semantics is meant to clear up.
>
>> In regard to (a), primitives such as "action", "context", "part",
>> "attribute", "relation", "time" are axiomatic concepts upon
>> which all other concepts depend.
>
> I think you are mixing up "axiomatic" and "primitive".
***** I don't think so.  Ayn Rand devotes a whole book,
"Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology", to discussing these
axiomatic concepts.  She clearly identifies
"existent", "entity", "characteristic" as axiomatic.  I wouldn't argue
if you want to call "part", "attribute", "relation", "action" primitives.
Rand doesn't give "proposition" the attention it deserves --
it is clearly an axiomatic concept.
Quoting from the "Glossary of Objectivist Definitions":
"An axiomatic concept is the identification of a primary fact of reality,
which cannot be analyzed, i.e., reduced to other facts or broken into
component parts.  It is implicit in all facts and in all knowledge."
> The expression
> above are *primitives* of your system, in that they are not defined in
> terms of any other expressions.  However, in addition to a rigorous
> semantics, axioms are exactly what are missing from mKR -- you don't
> provide any account of the logical properties of, and the logical
> connections among, the expressions above that reflects their intended
> meanings.
***** My terse genus-differentia definitions capture the most
fundamental relations between these axiomatic concepts.
> They are just meaningless marks.  And this is exactly where
> an appeal to English will not do -- the terms above are *notoriously*
> ambiguous and controversial.  Any use of them has to be tied down by
> axioms in a language with a clear semantics.  (To get just a taste of
> the complexities here, have a look at Pat Hayes' Catalog of Temporal
> Theories -- http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/timecatalog.pdf .  And
> that is just one of your primitives.)
>
>> They are dependent upon
>> each other.  I have given terse genus-differentia definitions of
>> each.  For example
>>    attribute is characteristic with single entity, non-separable;
>>    action is characteristic with single entity, non-separable,
>> space, time.
>>    part is characteristic with single entity, separable;
>>    relation is characteristic with multiple entity;
>> My model of an action is something that takes place in an interval of
>> (real number) space, time, but I allow space, time measurements
>> to be real or discrete.
>
> That is not a model.  It is not a semantics.
***** My mistake.  I was trying to convey the intuitive meaning.
I was not trying to define a "model" in the semantics-sense of the word.
> It is a terse, informal
> gloss whose component notions are as complex and problematic as the
> term you are attempting to clarify.
>
>> mKR is English-like, but it is formal, precise and unambiguous.
>
> It might be adequately formal (I see you do appear to provide a BNF
> for it) but it is most assuredly neither precise nor unambiguous, as
> you provide no more than informal English glosses at most, and English
> itself is imprecise and ambiguous.
>
>> The simplest mKR proposition has the form
>>    at space=s, time=t, view=v { sentence };
>> v names a list of propositions
>
> What's a proposition?
>
>> (the context) which disambiguates the sentence.
>
> What's a context?
>
>> s,t name the sub-context associated with the changes of an action.
>
> What's an action?  What's a change?
>
>> Genus-differentia definitions are used to make terms precise.
>
> They do no such thing.  They merely compound the problem by
> introducing yet more undefined, unaxiomatized terminology.
***** Genus-differentia definitions are a hierarchical system of
relations between concepts, which do make the terms precise.
They are grounded in real-life existents and their measurements.
>
>> Sentence structure is governed by a formal grammar.
>
> As far as I can see, that is the only part of your language that
> appears to be adequate -- assuming the BNF is legit.  But that's only
> the starting point for a robust, usable KR language.
>
>> In effect, mKR starts with a "Simple English" language -- no word
>> variations for number, tense, etc. -- and prefixes every sentence with
>> the context which disambiguates it.
>
> Perhaps you have in mind something like the simplified English that
> John Sowa often touts here.  Have you looked at that?  It might
> already do what you want mKR to do.
***** Yes, I'm familiar with John's CLCE.
mKR is very different, because its context is explicit.
In CLCE, as in English, context is implicit.
Thus mKR is unambiguous, and CLCE is ambiguous.
>
> -chris
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>     (05)



_________________________________________________________________
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    (06)

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