ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

## Re: [ontolog-forum] Truth

 To: doug@xxxxxxxxxx, "[ontolog-forum]" ravi sharma Wed, 4 Jul 2012 23:39:59 -0400
 DougYour reply is consistent and has helped me. I was wondering why the whole number and truth are not related and as to why the the issue of numbers being true or false, does not come up? Similarly how many combinations of fractions make up a whole number say 1? To mathematician 2 is a concept but to engineers and physicists at best asymptotic approximations such as 1.99999....and degrees of accuracies? Thanks.RaviOn Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 2:23 AM, doug foxvog wrote: On Fri, June 29, 2012 19:10, ravi sharma wrote: >... > Doug > Your explanation is logical, however, I do not have to explain (other than > those who believe that 2 is True) Unless we are discussing a computer language in which 0 is FALSE and any non-zero bit/byte/word/doubleword is TRUE, the issue of numbers being true or false, does not come up.  The words, as i am used to them being used in the present context apply to statements, and whether they correspond to "reality". > to any one outside as to what 2 is even as a concept? > Then only we ca say 2+2 and then there have to be those who > believe that 4 is True. I'm confused.  Do you mean that those who understand what 2 is as a concept and who also understand addition, believe that the statement "2+2 equals 4" is True?  If so, i agree. > What I was coming to was that 0, 1, whole number > and infinite as well as innumerable as concepts do these have to be > understood I agree with this regarding the first 3.  I wouldn't expect most people to understand infinite and innumerable as concepts. > as language or culture related concepts. I'd disagree that any of your set of concepts are language or culture related.  I'd expect an extra-terrestrial intelligence to have the same concepts, but to use different symbols to represent them. > ... as > progression to numbers or whole and fractional numbers, what are the > founding concepts that must be True in languages before we advance to > relationship between these concepts such as equality or absence as 'zero' > although it is not the same as either void or vacuum? The founding concepts that must be true are: * Whole numbers are sequential; there is exactly one "next" number after   any given whole number. * Whole numbers can thus be arranged in a unique order in a "number line". * One can count along the number line, counting one sequential number   for each number one reaches consecutively. * The first whole number is labeled 0. * The second whole number is labeled 1. * The result of the addition of two numbers is defined as the number   reached when counting to the first number from 0, and then counting   by the second number from the number reached. * A whole number is equal to itself and to no other number. * The result of adding two whole numbers is always the same whole number. [Given this, one can prove that 0 + n = n.] * Addition is commutative. > John > I read a bit of what you wrote for me and Avril and my inquiry is as to > what should we understand in language that would then help us understand > 2+2=4. Is it necessary to know 0 or 1 prior to mechanics of math or deeper > understanding? Mathematics is based on 0, 1, and counting.  One can memorize addition and multiplication tables without understanding what one is doing.  But, one should know something about 0, 1, and counting in order to understand additional math. -- doug > Regards. > Ravi > > On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Obrst, Leo J. wrote: > >> John, >> >> One issue with this approach is that you thereby reduce ontology to >> logic. >> I think there is reason (and value) to consider both of these subject >> areas >> distinct, if related. >> >> Ontologists use "universal" and "particular" because these technical >> terms >> are important to their exposition of what ontology is. Cf. the "Logic >> and >> Ontology" entry at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-ontology/. >> >> Similarly, I would oppose a reduction of formal semantics (natural >> language and otherwise) to logic or ontology, though they are related. >> >> Thanks, >> Leo >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto: >> ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F Sowa >> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 1:09 PM >> To: Avril Styrman >> Cc: [ontolog-forum] >> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Truth >> >> On 6/29/2012 12:34 PM, Avril Styrman wrote: >> > Then again, properties and particulars are needed in ontologies which >> > directly concern the measurable reality. >> >> I agree.  My point, though, is that you don't need the words >> 'property' or 'particular' when you develop or use an ontology. >> >> Those words are useful when you compare the theories of different >> philosophers.  But when you are developing a formal ontology, you use >> some formal logic to express it.  To discuss the ontology, you never >> need to use any terms other than the words for the syntactic units >> of the logic you use. >> >> If you're using FOL, the only words you need are 'function', relation', >> 'variable', and 'value' (of a variable).   If you're using Common Logic, >> the values of a variable can include functions and relations. >> >> I disagree with Quine's attempt to eliminate abstract entities, but I >> am willing to accept his famous dictum: >> >>    To be is to be the value of a quantified variable. >> >> In other words, the entities that exist in your ontology are identical >> to the things you can refer to by variables in the logic you used to >> express the ontology. >> >> My recommendation is to use the same terms to talk about the things >> in your ontology that you would use to refer to whatever your logic >> is able to express. >> >> This convention drastically simplifies the verbiage you use to talk >> about your ontology, and it clarifies talk about what exists. >> >> 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 >> >> >> _________________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> > > > -- > Thanks. > Ravi > (Dr. Ravi Sharma) > 313 204 1740 Mobile > > _________________________________________________________________ > 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 > _________________________________________________________________ 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 -- Thanks.Ravi(Dr. Ravi Sharma)313 204 1740 Mobile ``` _________________________________________________________________ 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) ```
 Current Thread Re: [ontolog-forum] Truth, doug foxvog Re: [ontolog-forum] Truth, ravi sharma <= Re: [ontolog-forum] Truth, doug foxvog Re: [ontolog-forum] Truth, Chris Menzel Re: [ontolog-forum] Truth, John F Sowa Re: [ontolog-forum] Truth, Matthew West Re: [ontolog-forum] Truth, John F Sowa Re: [ontolog-forum] Truth, Pat Hayes Re: [ontolog-forum] Truth, Chris Menzel Re: [ontolog-forum] Truth, John F Sowa Re: [ontolog-forum] Truth, Michael Brunnbauer Re: [ontolog-forum] Truth, Chris Menzel