Pat, (01)
My impression is that you are changing the meaning of "meaning", to
make your "foundation ontology" sound still useful. (02)
As I implied to Matthew, you can exclude maths, changing also what you
mean by foundation ontology in the process. But even then you haven't
pushed the burden of proof very far, the proofs relating to maths are
quite general, and depend only on the properties of manipulations of
symbols. (03)
To this extent I agree with John's reply. (04)
On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 8:14 AM, John F. Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: (05)
"... computer algorithms only deal with formal symbols, and it's
irrelevant whether those symbols came from pure or applied math. ..." (06)
-Rob (07)
On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Patrick Cassidy <pat@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> PatH has provided some clarification about what he (perhaps the world?)
> considers as the “meaning” of terms in a mathematical theory. This is very
> useful, and it now seems to me that we can distinguish the meaning of
> “meaning” in math and in computational ontology... (08)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (09)
|