John and Chris, please let me butt in with a clarifying question; are you
using "=" in a definitional or in a comparative way? (01)
For example, the function below compares two values, which happen to be
named A and B respectively in order of introduction. (02)
-------------- -------------- --------------
function FEqual(A,B): ('<','=','>');
begin
Result := (A=B);
end; (03)
var A, B : Integer := 72; (04)
begin
ShowMessage('A=B returns : '+FEqual(A,B));
end
-------------- -------------- -------------- (05)
But A and B have VALUE properties which are compared in FEqual above, not
their NAME properties; 'A' is a name, so is 'B', and 'A' is greater than 'B'
in alphabetical name order, but definitely NOT EQUAL to 'B' in any ordering
not involving substitutions of symbols into variables (unification). (06)
But of course, by definition (the definitional way mentioned way earlier
above, in .. 'definitional or comparative'; QED), 'A' is EQUAL to 'A' in
most universes. (07)
So maintaining multiple orderings on sets, which is extremely useful for
efficiently solving problems while minimizing time penalties, is useful both
in tracking the elements (ThingS as I call them, atoms for chemists, people
for politicians, grains as physicists say, chunks as .. ) and in tracking
the sets themselves as they dynamically reflect the dynamic reorderings
among the (gasp) terminals in the universe of discourse. (08)
HTH,
-Rich (09)
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com (010)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Christopher
Menzel
Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 7:11 PM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Inconsistent Theories (011)
On Feb 8, 2010, at 8:40 PM, John F. Sowa wrote:
> One could quibble about whether the symbol "=" is a logical or
> a nonlogical symbol. I would claim that identity is part of
> the logical apparatus (partly because I agree with Wittgenstein
> that x=y is a statement about the names x and y, rather than a
> statement about the subject domain). In any case, I don't want
> to get into metaphysical arguments about the nature of identity. (012)
Good thing, John, since you're wrong. :-D (013)
-chris (014)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (015)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (016)
|