To: | "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
---|---|
From: | sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx |
Date: | Fri, 22 Jul 2011 21:12:05 -0400 (EDT) |
Message-id: | <822ca595cd658b6f36e9d5b2737664a5.squirrel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
Dear Matthew and Avril, All this discussion is totally irrelevant to the primary issue: 1. Intensional methods provide clear and simple ways to derive and to formalize modality, intentionality, and other related issues. 2. Extensional methods based on possible worlds are problematical in huge numbers of ways, and they are mired in endless confusions -- as these emails demonstrate. The choice is clear. I see no point in continuing this discussion. For further information, I strongly recommend the following article and the references cited there: http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/worlds.pdf John _________________________________________________________________ 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 (01) |
Previous by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] intangibles (was RE: Why most classifications are fuzzy), Avril Styrman |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] intangibles (was RE: Why most classifications are fuzzy), sowa |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] intangibles (was RE: Why most classifications are fuzzy), doug foxvog |
Next by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] intangibles (was RE: Why most classifications are fuzzy), doug foxvog |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |