----- Original Message -----
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> (01)
> That's the point we have been trying to get across: Some parts
> of the problem are impossible to specify, and other parts are
> very easy. What we recommend is that you should ignore the
> impossible parts, and do the easy parts.
> RHM> You can get me started in the right direction by explaining
> > how a computer programmer can map "John F. Sowa" to reality.
> > Next, how a computer programmer can map "human" to reality.
> > Next, how a computer programmer can map "John F. Sowa is a human."
> > to reality.
> We originally suggested that you take Tarski as an example, but he
> doesn't even say anything specific about natural languages. However,
> William of Ockham goes into great detail. And that is why I recommend
> that you start with Ockham.
> Instead, Aristotle, Augustine, Ockham, and all modern logicians
> and linguists talk about words and other signs that we can see,
> hear, analyze, and relate.
> If you continue reading Ockham, he'll answer your question --
> but his examples are 'Socrates' and 'man' (or 'Sortes' and 'homo'
> in Latin). .)
> John (02)
I read all of Ockham, Part I.
I did not find the answer to any of my three questions. (03)
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
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 (05)