[ontolog-forum] Nontransitive partative relations

[jmcclure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

(Please allow me to split this topic to its own thread)

John Sowa said

(1) "For example, a lock is part of a door, and a door is part of a house. But a lock is not normally considered part of a house."

Recently it's asked at what point does an instance of a car become a new instance as 100% of its parts have been replaced? To which I silently answered "when it's identity as an instance is invalidated". In a similar manner, I think partatives are being abused here, because neither the lock nor the door relate in any way to the identity of the house. Despite this, I think it's more accurate to say a door HAS an installed lock, a house HAS a room HAS a door. Even more accurately, a "house" is a residential structure, only identifiable by having a room whose assigned use is as a "bedroom".

(2) "Hydrogen is part of water, and water may be part of a cooling system. But hydrogen is not considered part of the cooling system."

Yes hydrogen is part of H2O but it's a real stretch to say water is part of a cooling system. The cooling system HAS water, it is not part of it. When did you last purchase a cooling system that has a "water part"? More mereologically applicable is the statement that H is part of H2O which is a part of milk, yielding that H is a part of milk.

 

Basically I'm hearing confusion about "has" (possessive) and "has-part" (compositional) which lead to odd concepts like "non-transitive partative relations". At the link Sowa provided (thanks!) is this: "If one finds at least one of these examples convincing,then one has to face the problem I have pointed to, will discuss, and (I think) solve." So let's look at some of the dozen examples provided.

1. same as yours about the lock and door and house
2. A platoon is part of a company and a company is part of a battalion but yet a platoon is not part of a battalion.... wrong, a company "has" platoons.
3. A cells nucleus is part of a cell and a cell is part of an organ, but yet a nucleus is not part of an organ ... wrong, an organ "has" cells.
4. Heart cells are part of the heart and the heart is part of the circulatory system but yet heart cells are not part of the circulatory system.... wrong, a heart "has" cells.
5. and so on

Notice my sleight of hand: I focus instead on is-part-of's complementary property "has-part"; "is-part-of" is the relation from member->whole while "has-part" is the relation from whole->member. I characterize quite simply the member->whole relation thusly: I use prepositions as the relation eg

1. The lock is ON the door
2. The platoon is IN the company
3. The nucleus is IN the cell
4. The cell is IN the heart

Prepositions such as these are a crucial part of (said loosely, as Ingvar does!).

All that said, I'll read Ingvar's paper in more depth if I need to; my initial take is the author gets off on the wrong foot from the outset. Further, I must say I really like the level of discourse and analysis on this forum - I remain (always) a student of these topics! Anyway any comment about my use of prepositions as the names of relations would be much appreciated.

Thanks - jmc

 

I

f

 

o

n

e

 

f

i

n

d

s

 

a

t

 

l

e

a

s

t

 

o

n

e

 

o

f

 

t

h

e

s

e

 

e

x

a

m

p

l

e

s

 

c

o

n

v

i

n

c

i

n

g

,

 

t

h

e

n

 

o

n

e

 

h

a

s

 

t

o

 

f

a

c

e

 

t

h

e

 

p

r

o

b

l

e

m

 

I

 

h

a

v

e

 

p

o

i

n

t

e

d

 

t

o

,

 

w

i

l

l

 

d

i

s

c

u

s

s

,

 

a

n

d

 

(

I

 

t

h

i

n

k

)

 

s

o

l

v

e

_________________________________________________________________
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)