ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

## Re: [ontolog-forum] Truth

 To: "[ontolog-forum]" "doug foxvog" Thu, 5 Jul 2012 16:23:36 -0400
 ```On Wed, July 4, 2012 23:39, ravi sharma wrote: > Doug > Your reply is consistent and has helped me. I was wondering why the whole > number and truth are not related    (01) Truth, as we have been discussing it, is a feature of a statement/assertion not of an arbitrary object.    (02) > and as to why the the issue of numbers being true or false, > does not come up?    (03) Same answer.    (04) > Similarly how many combinations of fractions make up a whole number > say 1?    (05) There are an uncountable infinity of equations whose answer is the number 1. I'm not sure what you mean by "make up".    (06) > To mathematician 2 is a concept but > to engineers and physicists at best asymptotic approximations such as > 1.99999....and degrees of accuracies?    (07) This is the difference between whole numbers, which are counting numbers and measurements, calculations, or rational/real numbers. An engineer or physicist can count to two as easily as a mathematician can. A measurement of a physical quantity will have an uncertainty.    (08) Approximations appear when using computers for division with floating point results or fractional powers of a number because they are not infinite precision machines. A computer that stores fractions in a fractional representation instead of in a binary or digital system needs not approximate the result of division.    (09) An ontology can model a fraction, logarithm, trigonometric function, or fractional power without approximation as mathematicians do -- by referencing the function or simplification thereof. It need not convert to a non-terminating binary or decimal representation.    (010) I would not relate measurement accuracy or computer calculation approximations to "truth".    (011) -- doug    (012) > Thanks. > Ravi > On 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 >    (013) _________________________________________________________________ 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    (014) ```
 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 Re: [ontolog-forum] Truth, Matthew West