|From:||Jawit Kien <jawit.kien@xxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Mon, 8 Feb 2010 14:34:14 -0600|
So to be a bit pedantic but to show the confusion that can happen when trying to examine something|
that is only loosely defined...
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 1:54 PM, Rich Cooper <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Example: Let the two theories be:
Presumably "terminal vector" means something to Rich. Since it doesn't mean
anything to me, I'll make the assumption that if we have airplane terminals,
it also makes sense to talk about boat or spaceship terminals,
If an airplane terminal is a location that people arrive and depart from
when they are traveling by airplane, then boat or spaceship terminals could
be places that either float in water or float in space and allow transport by their
corresponding mode of transportation. If they float, then these terminals
could move, and hence don't have to be anchored in place.
It would then make sense to say these terminals have a vector,
since a vector is made up of a direction and an angle.
When an object moves along a vector such as the unspecified terminals
would move along, it would make sense to talk about the various positions
or locations in 3-spaces which the terminal and group them as a set F.
So the predicate TrueS() would map these sets and various vectors
and would hold when a particular terminal x and a particular set were observed.
Presumably each observation would qualify as a "Thing", as you mentioned.
I'm not sure what F(x) means. I guess it means a function that when given a
direction and angle would produce a set of locations. and your FalseS ()
predicate would give you the infinite number of locations/positions which do not
correspond to any vectors that the terminal moves along.
I agree this whole example feels incredibly underspecified.
I have no idea how the FO ideas could clarify it, or even if they would even have
an impact on these questions.
I expect that if you have the terminal at any known point, there may be an infinite
number of vectors it can move along, but there still will be plenty that it don't lie
on those vectors. When you are talking about xor'ing infinite sets, I expect you
will find that your intuitions don't guide you well.
_________________________________________________________________ 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] Inconsistent Theories, Rich Cooper|
|Next by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Inconsistent Theories, Rich Cooper|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Inconsistent Theories, Rich Cooper|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Inconsistent Theories, Rich Cooper|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|