To: | Hassan Aït-Kaci <hak@xxxxxxx>, "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
---|---|
From: | sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx |
Date: | Thu, 21 Mar 2013 05:44:51 -0400 (EDT) |
Message-id: | <a90f4b503a87e6f6e533d4cdd55299ef.squirrel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
Two points: 1. It is certainly true that you can map A gives B to C into a form that uses only dyadic relation. 2. But Peirce was trying to explain that you have simply converted one triad into a triad of a different form. I'll just use predicate calculus notation, since it's easy to type. But the point is obvious when you use a graph notation. With a triadic relation: gives(A,B,C) With three dyadic relations and a monadic relation give(x): (Ex) give(x) & agent(x,A) & theme(x,B) & recipient(x,C) In the first version, you have a triadic connection of A, B, and C to the relation named gives. In the second version, you have a triadic connection of A to agent to give, B to theme to give, and C to recipient to give. You still have a triad, but the central node is called give instead of gives. 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] Fwd: MOVED: Re: [ontology-summit] Hackathon: BACnet Ontology, Steven Ericsson-Zenith |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Fwd: MOVED: Re: [ontology-summit] Hackathon: BACnet Ontology, Steven Ericsson-Zenith |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] On dyads and triads, Steven Ericsson-Zenith |
Next by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Fwd: MOVED: Re: [ontology-summit] Hackathon: BACnet Ontology, Steven Ericsson-Zenith |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |