Re: [ontolog-forum] Semiotic Systems

["Rich Cooper" <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Frank,

 

No, it still feels like reverse reasoning – the answer is logic, lets work back to the question – and that has always bothered me about how logic really will be effectively applied in AI programs.  FCA intrigues me, but again it starts with the already identified objects and properties, so it also starts with the answer to the question I have:  How are those objects and events identified as individuals, distinguished from each other, and generally disambiguated and tracked through their trajectory in a discourse?

 

-Rich

 

 

 

Sincerely,

Rich Cooper

EnglishLogicKernel.com

Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com

 

---

From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of FERENC KOVACS
Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2009 10:37 AM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Semiotic Systems

 

Rich,

If we start with just the two items – existence detectors and identifiers we still have to define identity

 

This is why it is reasonable to see Relatons, Objects, and Properties as Triplets:

 

Relation: needs at least one object

Objects: existence detectors

Relation: identify (verb) identification (operation)

Property: the result of the above operation to establish existence of identity (identification established) a match with

Object: identifier

 

Does that make sense to you?

Frank

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Rich Cooper

To: '[ontolog-forum] '

Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2009 5:57 PM

Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Semiotic Systems

 

 

Sincerely,

Rich Cooper

EnglishLogicKernel.com

Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com

 

FERENC KOVACS wrote

 

Rich,

My problem with events is the definition of boundaries, the identification of the "pattern" of an event for the purpose of recognition. Although I see events as a sequence of temporaly identifieable entities and not as a chain of cause of effect, because there are many concurrent causes leading to an event (see Petri nets), I still can see how an event remains very vague and arbitrarily identified as changes take place at all sorts of scale and places before they add up to a situation that is no longer identical with the one a second ago. So this approach does not solve the problem of showing the trajectory of learning about things, recording it a manner that serves as a good (and standardized) interface beween FO components.

 

RC> Agreed.  Tiny changes make big differences in chaos theories (butterfly wings “cause” hurricanes).  If we start with just the two items – existence detectors and identifiers we still have to define identity.  The only place to go with that is FCA, but that skips over the question of how you identify the objects and properties BEFORE you start clustering them.  There are missing pieces in the math here, or at least the realities are not fully modeled yet. 

 

-Rich

---

_________________________________________________________________
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

_________________________________________________________________
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)