I find this difficult to understand. (01)
Sentence #1:
"Existence is the name of existent is either physical entity
or physical characteristic
or physical proposition." (02)
becomes:
"Existence is the name of
(existent is either physical entity
or physical characteristic
or physical proposition)." (03)
I'm not sure what is meant by "is the name of". It surely does not mean
that the subject is an identifier, such as a URI or (other) text string. (04)
It probably does not mean that it refers to the set of all propositions
of the form of the sentence which is the direct object. (05)
Perhaps this means:
"Every instance of Existence is a Situation
described by one of the following:
* some instance of Existent is an instance of Physical Entity
* some instance of Existent is an instance of Physical Characteristic
* some instance of Existent is an instance of Physical Proposition." (06)
If so, then Sentence #2
"Identity is the name of
(existent has physical characteristic
and physical characteristic is either physical part
or physical attribute
or physical relation
or physical action)."
would mean
"Every instance of Identity is a Situation
described by the following:
* some instance of Existent has a physical characteristic
which is one of:
+ a part characteristic
+ a physical attribute characteristic
+ a physical relation characteristic
+ a physical action characteristic." (07)
This seems very different from the common meaning of identity. (08)
If the names of the terms is so far off from the meanings of the terms,
i really can't figure out what is meant by sentences using them. (09)
-- doug foxvog (010)
On Sun, April 13, 2014 03:56, Richard H. McCullough wrote: (011)
> Pat
>
> The first sentence is a compound sentence
> with the structure:
>
> Existence is the name of sentence.
>
> The main verb is "is", and the main verb of sentence is "is".
> I could have written
>
> Existence is the name of the following sentence.
>
> But I prefer the compound sentence.
>
> The problem is that English grammar is not designed
> to make it easy to name a sentence.
> For mKR, I just changed the grammar to allow a prefix.
>
> Sentence Name ::
>
> Dick McCullough
>
> Context Knowledge Systems
>
> mKR/mKE tutorial
>
>> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] physical context and mental context
>> From: phayes@xxxxxxx
>> Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2014 01:29:05 -0500
>> CC: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; kr-language@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
>> rslatimer@xxxxxxx
>> To: rhm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; rhmccullough@xxxxxxxxx
>>
>> But this isn't grammatical English. For example:
>>
>> Existence is the name of existent is either physical entity
>> or physical characteristic
>> or physical proposition.
>>
>> is not a sentence (what is its main verb?) In fact, I believe that
>> *none* of these are grammatical English sentences.
>>
>> Can you translate this into grammatically correct, meaningful English
>> sentences? I will *guess* that what you mean is this:
>>
>> "Existence" is the name of existent. An existent is either a physical
>> entity, or a physical characteristic, or a physical proposition.
>>
>> But now, if this is correct, what does the first sentence mean? The
>> second sentence seems to imply that existents are a kind of entity, so
>> that the word "existent" is a classifier: technically a class name, like
>> "fish" or "human", so one can speak of "an existent". But the first
>> sentence uses it as a singular noun, which has no obvious meaning.
>> Suppose someone said:
>>
>> "Piscine" is the name of fish.
>>
>> What would that mean? Does it just say that the word "piscine" is a
>> synonym for the word "fish" ? With that understanding, all you are
>> saying here is that "existence" is a synonym for "existent". But in
>> English that is just plain false, since the first word names a quality
>> while the second names a class: basically, existents are things which
>> exist, i.e. which have existence. (Just as humans are things that have
>> the quality of being human.) So perhaps you are intending to say
>> something quite different, but I am unable to even guess what that might
>> be.
>>
>> I look forward to seeing the English version when you finally get it
>> written :-)
>>
>> Pat
>>
>>
>> On Apr 13, 2014, at 12:57 AM, Richard H. McCullough
>> <rhmccullough@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> > Pat,
>> > I changed my mind at the last minute, here are the all-English
>> versions.
>> >
>> > http://mkrmke.org/physical.english.html
>> > http://mkrmke.org/mental.english.html
>> >
>> > P.S. I left some indenting when I edited,
>> > but I didn't pretty print it for you.
>> >
>> >
>> > Dick McCullough
>> > Context Knowledge Systems
>> > mKR/mKE tutorial
>> >
>> > From: rhmccullough@xxxxxxxxx
>> > To: phayes@xxxxxxx
>> > CC: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; kr-language@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
>> rslatimer@xxxxxxx
>> > Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] physical context and mental context
>> > Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2014 21:00:34 -0700
>> >
>> > Pat
>> > I couldn't find your email on Outlook.com,
>> > so I copied this from Ontolog Forum archives.
>> >
>> > &&&&& see remarks below
>> >
>> >
>> > On Apr 12, 2014, at 2:34 PM, Richard H. McCullough
>> <rhmccullough@xxxxxxxxx>
>> > wrote:
>> > (01)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > Pat, you said:
>> > >
>> > I have no idea what I would be disagreeing with (or not).
>> >
>> > >
>> > You still have not given your notation any semantics,
>> >
>> > >
>> > so none of these displayed lines convey any content.
>> >
>> > >
>> > I say: I've got it !
>> >
>> > >
>> > Every mKR proposition has an English translation.
>> >
>> > >
>> > The English translation is the meaning of the mKR proposition.
>> (02)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > OK, then please save me from the mKR and just tell me the English
>> sentences
>> > that they translate to.
>> > (03)
>> >
>> > &&&&& Are you sure you want all English?
>> > &&&&& I created the hierarchy group because it's so much easier to
>> read
>> > &&&&& than the English (and mKR) equivalent propositions.
>> > &&&&& But if you want it, I'll give it to you. Let me know.
>> >
>> >
>> > If I find any of those sentences to be ambiguous., should I conclude
>> that the
>> > mKR is ambiguous?
>> > (04)
>> >
>> > &&&&& Assuming you want context translations, yes.
>> > &&&&& The whole point of context knowledge is to remove ambiguity.
>> > &&&&& I can write ambiguous mKR, but I try to avoid it.
>> >
>> > Pat (05)
>> >
>> >
>> > &&&&& I'll make you an English + hierarchy group translation.
>> >
>> > &&&&& Then I'll translate the hierarchy if you really want it.
>> >
>> > Dick McCullough
>> > Context Knowledge Systems
>> > mKR/mKE tutorial
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> IHMC (850)434 8903(850)434
>> 8903(850)434 8903(850)434 8903 home
>> 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416(850)202 4416(850)202
>> 4416(850)202 4416 office
>> Pensacola (850)202 4440(850)202 4440(850)202
>> 4440(850)202 4440 fax
>> FL 32502 (850)291 0667(850)291 0667(850)291
>> 0667(850)291 0667 mobile (preferred)
>> phayes@xxxxxxx http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> CallSend SMSAdd to SkypeYou'll need Skype CreditFree via Skype
> CallSend SMSAdd to SkypeYou'll need Skype CreditFree via Skype
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> (012)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (013)
|