[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] 3D+1 (was presentism...was blah blah blah)

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Waclaw Kusnierczyk <waku@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 11:51:41 -0600
Message-id: <4D4AEB2D.1090403@xxxxxxxxxxx>
On 02/03/2011 11:28 AM, Yu Lin wrote:
>> Is Cct
>> 1. C(c)@t ?
>> 2. C@t(c) ?
>> 3. C(c@t) ?
> I think it is 1. C(c)@t    (01)

On what grounds?    (02)

I would actually think it is C@t(c) (which is 2. C(c,t) in the 
traditional AI/KR notation Pat mentioned), because of the definition    (03)

     c instance_of C at t - a primitive relation between a continuant 
instance and a class which  it instantiates at a specific  time  [1]    (04)

which talks about *instantiating at time* (hence it seems to be the 
relation that is time-qualified) rather than the sentence being true at 
a time (hence it seems not to be the sentence that is time-qualified, as 
you suggest).  The cited paper does not use the R(...) notation, 
however, so it's not immediately obvious where those author would put 
the time variable.    (05)

vQ    (06)

[1] http://genomebiology.com/2005/6/5/R46    (07)

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    (08)

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