[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Inconsistent Theories

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Rob Freeman <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 11:55:18 +1300
Message-id: <7616afbc1002091455y79a5ea96id96290724039fd06@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Another long thread disputing names for things.    (01)

One solution I don't doubt is to require everything be expressed in
terms of sets.    (02)

But I don't think any formalism, even if its semantics is formally
specified in terms of sets, will be enough.    (03)

As we were discussing earlier. There will usually be more than one
formalism possible, and in general they will disagree.    (04)

Fundamentally at fault I believe is the idea that names for things are
worth arguing about. Abandon that and even using everyday language you
can usually find something to agree on. Particularly since, to follow
Pat C's original point, it is impossible to disagree about anything,
unless you agree about something. (BTW my answer to that Pat, is that
what two contradictory descriptions agree on may not be the same from
case to case, so you still don't get your FO.)    (05)

So, I don't think it is necessary for everyone to start talking in
sets, much less in any formal language based on one or other
formalization of sets.    (06)

We just need to agree to stop arguing about language. When you really
don't understand a request for clarification will usually suffice.
Though it must be sympathetic, because it will always be possible to
dispute the language of that too.    (07)

But I don't believe arguments about the language ideas are expressed
in, are ever useful.    (08)

-Rob    (09)

On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 3:32 AM, John F. Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> ...
> The recent discussions in this list indicate how easily verbiage
> in ordinary language can be misunderstood.
> ...
> That is why we have put so much emphasis on the need for formal
> notations whose semantics is formally specified.
> ...
> If there's any confusion about the verbiage, focus on the sets D
> and R and their mapping to the formalism.  The sets are critical,
> what you call them or their elements (or members) is irrelevant.    (010)

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    (011)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>