On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 10:36 AM, Len Yabloko <lenya@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>- If you're working with subsets, it feels extensional to me (rather
>>than rule based intensional).
>>
>>- I can see composing projections (as specialized subset operation) as
>>possibly a morphism, but its still kinda vague. Your specification of
>>projection is not well-defined enough to guarantee associativity (or I
>>just don't see it).
>>
>>- maybe you're thinking of a given poset as a particular category
>>where the elements of the poset are the category objects and the 'less
>>than or equal' relation is the morphism?
>
> Do you see now what I am thinking? (01)
Not exactly. Is your question pragmatically intending an affirmative
to the above questions? I really think you should elaborate on what
you think your objects and morphisms are, especially with very
explicit examples. THen I might be able to more constructively say ' I
understand', or 'yes, you should go in this direction' or 'that
probably won't be very fruitful'. Right now it's pretty vague. (02)
--
Mitchell A. Harris
Research Faculty (Instructor in Computer Science)
Department of Radiology
Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School (03)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (04)
|