On Mar 28, 2013, at 3:11 AM, "Hassan Aït-Kaci" <hassanaitkaci@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: (01)
> all that is computable is fundamentally dyadic (02)
The results you refer to deal with "computable numbers" and not with
conceptions in general. This is a very different question than the subject at
hand. (03)
It is hardly surprising that a computable logic based upon Russell/Frege's
dyadic logic in the first place should be "fundamentally dyadic." (04)
To directly associate a theory of computable numbers with general concept/
language analysis/ semeiotic theory is certainly not broadly accepted - not
least as evidenced by the fact that I attended two major conferences last year
in England with other researchers asking hard questions about the nature of
computation and its foundations - one being a mathematical conference exploring
"the incomputable." (05)
I suspect whether or not computation, and modern symbolic processing, as
currently understood is actually capable of performing general conceptual
analysis or applying semeiotic theory, and if not why not, is subject worthy of
a discussion here. It would at least inform you concerning what is possible and
where the limits are on our current platforms - and suggest how to mitigate
them. (06)
Allow me to offer a general warning to those enamored of our current
technologies: (07)
For the man with a hammer, everything is a nail. (08)
Regards,
Steven (09)
--
Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith
Institute for Advanced Science & Engineering
http://iase.info (010)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (011)
|