[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Triadic Sign Relations

To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 18:05:21 -0400
Message-id: <4C6DAAA1.7090503@xxxxxxxxxxx>
On 8/19/2010 2:07 PM, Rich Cooper wrote:
> But I see no rationale justifying the requirement that only attributive
> properties (single argument fluents) be used to form the lattice.    (01)

Whenever you have a partial ordering over any domain D, you can define
a lattice over D.  If you like, you can define a lattice over n-adic
relations.    (02)

In pure mathematics, there is no "rationale".  You just state some
definitions and axioms and prove some theorems.  If you don't like
somebody's abstract theory, you can ignore it, and it won't bite you.    (03)

For applications, you might have some discussion over what choice
of formalism is useful for solving the problems you need to solve.
Some formalisms are better than others according to whatever measure
of goodness you consider important.    (04)

John    (05)

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    (06)

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