|From:||Jawit Kien <jawit.kien@xxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Tue, 21 Apr 2009 14:55:47 -0500|
I'm very new to this forum, so some of my statement's below may be wrong-headed,|
but I'd like to understand. Please forgive my lack of knowledge. I also don't want to sound like
I am attacking you (Bart) since I read another one of your postings and I was impressed
by how clear it was. Unfortunately, I'm not understanding this one.
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Bart Gajderowicz <bgajdero@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
*** Originally from [ontolog-forum] web-syllogism-and-worldview ***
Your result is hierarchical or a hierarchy? You defining a function that
has a result which is a hiearchy, or are you describing the result (presumably
of the comparison operation) as being able to be described as a matching
some defintion of "hierarchy", hence able to use the adjective "hierarchical" to
I assume a cyclic definition is one that uses the defined term in the definition
of that term. like saying a cat is a cat with black fur. Or, a #$Thing is an instance
of a #$Collection and a #$Collection is an instance of a #$Thing.
I've been told that Set theory does allow self-references in definitions but
Mereology Theory does not. Which are you using?
Don't you agree that logical syntax (and the meanings from FOPL) just provide a
different tool to describe phenomena? Isn't the point of science to describe things,
so a more precise tool to describe it would be better?
If semantics is just a fancy word for meaning, what do the people who use the
term RES mean by the phrase "real meaning" ? I can see formal semantics as
attaching some formal mathematical model to a formal syntax defined by a grammar
of some sort, but what other kind of meaning can they mean? I'm thinking of some
kind of rigorous definition, I'm sure anyone can come up with a definition that doesn't
have a rigor attached to it. "It means what I say it means" or summat like that.
You said "at some point" is that a physical location, or a point in time?
or at some step in a logical inference? When you say "particle" are you
just trying to be more general than just saying "object" or "thing" or are
you thinking of sub atomic particles, or particles in a language?
I'm sorry, even when I try to state what you just said formally, I get too
classification - the act of assigning something a class
or classification - the hierarchy of classes and subclasses that could be
used assign some thing a class.
similar attributes - how is this different that having a "certain relationship"
aren't attributes relationships too? what makes the "certain relationship"
special enough? and don't attributes refer to something else as well?
I assume "type of X particle" is another way of saying the particle can be
assigned to the class X. Why do you use the word "type" here instead of
This stuff sounds like a mix between physics and some kind of knowledge
representation to me, hence I am very confused.
If we are talking about physics and atomic particles, isn't there some
kind of law that says you can't know location and some other quality at the
I assume you mean class membership in the particles that are acting in
a certain way historically, which is what you were talking about before.
Why would inference, fuzzy logic or uncertainty even come up?
This may be used to either reach a new level
You seem to be using "reaction with Z" as a way of classifying X & Y.
how is this different from the attributes and relationships you talked
By the way, now you seem to be talking about molecules instead
of particles. I'm very confused about the actual things you are trying
to classify. Unless this is some metaphor that I don't understand.
Does you added axiom mean that
you basically add a transitive axiom for R & R2 at the same time?
doesn't the original axion mean that the relation R obeys a transitive axiom ?
so A is a transitive hierarchy, and B is a transitive hierarchy.
( actually, I presume they are actually variables that stand for two
specific transitive hierarchies ) I think of a hierarchy as being
iso-morphic to a tree of nodes. Thus R10 is a relationship
so K-9 is a class, Species is a class, Animal is a Class,
Species is a specialized class of Animal
and K-9 is an instance of the class Species ?
presumably both A & B are each a hierarchy of classes?
so my tree-of-nodes has each node as a class?
Fido is an instance of the class K-9 ?
What is the tie to A and B? Is Fido an instance of A and
at the same time an instance of B ? But what does it
mean to be an instance of a hierarchy? I would have thought
an instance of a hierarchy was a tree, but now you seem
to be defining instance as a relationship between some
other group of things to the classes that are the nodes
in the trees. so Fido can't be an instance of A or B,
I guess, unless Fido is the name for some tree which
can be classified as a "K-9".
R10 is an un-named relation that holds between the class K-9 and the class Animal
? But where do A and B come into this? I thought R10 was taking hierarchies,
not elements of a hierarchy.
What does this mean? an instance attribute to start with? Are we following
some path, that I haven't seen explicated yet, which has an instance attribute
(presumably a relation on instances) as the "starting point" of the path?
whoa, didn't you just say a paragraph ago that F10(Fido,Animal) does NOT hold?
It seems that you are engaging in some logical conclusion that almost makes
sense, but not quite there. If Animal is a category, which I assume is something
like a #$Collection, it is not of the same natural kind as Fido, so you can't
infer along an instance-of chain which has two categories in it.
in other words, since Fido is an instance of K-9 then the instances of K-9
have the same predicates as Fido, but K-9 is a collection, so it will have
the predicates for collections. not the predicates for instances of K-9.
by transitivity, I would assume that since K-9 is a specialization of Animal,
then if Fido is an instance of K-9, then Fido is an instance of Animal.
hence the the predicates that apply to instances of Animal would also
apply to Fido as well. I would NOT assume that the predicates that apply
to K-9 also apply to the instances of Animal, as presumably there could
be other specializations of Animal which are disjoint from K-9. The predicates
that applied to the instances of Animal would apply to the instances of some
other specialization of Animal (call it Feline), as well as K-9. That is what it
mans to say that K-9 is a specialization of Animal. (or that Feline is a
specialization of Animal)
_________________________________________________________________ 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 (01)
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] cyclic and acyclic definitions, John F. Sowa|
|Next by Date:||[ontolog-forum] Goverment funding for private research?, Len Yabloko|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] cyclic and acyclic definitions, John Bottoms|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] cyclic and acyclic definitions, Bart Gajderowicz|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|