Re: [ontolog-forum] English number of words/concepts that cannot be comp

["Rich Cooper" <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear John,

On slide 21, you describe Peirce's rules of FOL:

Three pairs of rules insert (i) or erase (e) a graph or phrase:

1. Generalize/Specialize. Any phrase may be replaced by a more general phrase in a positive area or by a more specialized phrase in a negative area.

2. Iterate/Deiterate. Any phrase may be iterated (copied) in the same area or any nested area; any phrase that could have been iterated may be erased.

3. Double negation. A double negation (nest of two ovals with nothing between the inner and outer oval) may be inserted or erased in any area.

These rules are sound and complete for first-order logic.

These rules seem to be isomorphic when using English sentences as well:

1. Generalize/Specialize. Any phrase may be replaced by a more general phrase in a positive area or by a more specialized phrase in a negative area.

In English, more elaborate descriptive phrases can be substituted into simpler phrases, such as nouns, adjectives or even verbs. 

Standard practice includes the use of the tilde (~) before a sentence or phrase indicates a sentence or phrase that is false if the sentence or phrase is true.  So depending on whether the tilde appears an even number or odd number of times from left of the sentence to the phrase of interest, you can visit true or false subexpressions of the text. 

2. Iterate/Deiterate. Any phrase may be iterated (copied) in the same area or any nested area; any phrase that could have been iterated may be erased.

That is also true of English rewriting systems, which avoid the discomforting layer of vague concepts in ontologies with simple words, substitutable variables, and substituents. 

3. Double negation. A double negation (nest of two ovals with nothing between the inner and outer oval) may be inserted or erased in any area.

If S is true in context A, then if B is included in a subcontext, phrases can be substituted depending on the sign (~^n) preceding the substituted phrase.  This properly construes the use of natural English with respect to negation. 

Do you agree that, at least in principle, English rewriting systems can perform full FOL?

What would keep if from full FOL?

-Rich

Sincerely,

Rich Cooper

EnglishLogicKernel.com

Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com

9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2

-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F Sowa
Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2014 11:54 AM
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] English number of words/concepts that cannot be composed of others

Gregg, Tom, Pat C, and John B,

GR

> Have you looked at Natural Semantic Metalanguage?

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_semantic_metalanguage

Yes.  I cited Anna Wierzbicka's _Lingua Mentalis_ in my 1984 book,

and I've followed her other books over the years.  I call her

primitives 'accordion words' -- because you can stretch them and

squish them to fit anything you please.

They're useful.  To quote my favorite philosopher, C. S. Peirce:

> It is easy to speak with precision upon a general theme.  Only, one

> must commonly surrender all ambition to be certain.  It is equally

> easy to be certain. One has only to be sufficiently vague.  It is

> not  so difficult to be pretty precise and fairly certain at once

> about a very narrow subject. (CP 4.237)

Again, I recommend that every reader of this list *study* the paper

"I don't believe in word senses."  Adam K and Sue A are *professionals*

in lexicography and computational linguistics.  They know the difference

between accordion words and precise definitions.  Both can be useful

for different purposes, but it's important to know the difference.

TK

> I am looking for (I'm going to call it) 'fundamental concepts' and I

> am making the assumption that there is some basic agreed level of

> definition of these concepts so we don't end up in Physics and Chemistry.

Brief answer:

  1. There is no "basic agreed level" whatsoever -- NONE!

  2. The top level of an ontology *must* be vague and underspecified.

     It can be useful, but the real knowledge is in the lower levels.

  3. Please remember that Cyc started out with the assumption that a

     formal ontology of the knowledge of a high-school graduate could be

     specified in 10 years.  After 30 years and over $100 million of

     investment, Doug Lenat has emphasized that all the real knowledge

     is in the detailed low levels.  The top level is very vague and

     underspecified.  It cannot support any kind of detailed reasoning.

TK

> My criteria for 'fundamental concept' is that it cannot be replaced

> by a semantic net-let that crosses the agreed level.

If that's your definition, then you're talking about the empty set.

There is no concept or thought of any kind that cannot be analyzed

at a deeper level.

> So John S, to take your examples...

I was just trying to give one-line examples.  In any case, the

terms in your analyses are accordion words.  Please study that

paper by Adam K.

JB

> as Lakoff shows us in "Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things" the

> universals are different for different linguistic environments...

> But it still comes down to what type of tasks are facing. The "core"

> concepts for farming are very different from those needed in the office.

Yes!  But I would avoid using the word 'core' because it gives the

mistaken impression that some kind of core is possible.  But even for

farming and offices, the basic terms are accordion words.  Note how

we use the abbreviation 'cc' in our emails.  In office-speak, it used

to mean 'carbon copy'.  When was the last time you saw a carbon copy?

PC

> according to Guo, the number of senses used **in the definitions**

> average to less than 2.

If so, Guo doesn't know how to define words or to count definitions.

I suspect he was using those terms as accordion words.  If you stretch

and squeeze them enough, you can adapt them to almost anything.

But with every stretch and squeeze, you blur an immense amount of info.

Please tell Guo to study Adam K's paper.  Also study the publications

about *microsenses* by Alan Cruse.  A microsense is any intermediate

point as you stretch and squeeze your accordion.

PC

> If anyone knows of such a study, I would very much like to get a pointer.

I've given you many, many pointers over the years.  And I beg you

to study them until you reach enlightenment.  For starters, please

reread http://www.jfsowa.com/talks/goal3.pdf and *follow* every URL

to every reference in it.

Those other goalX.pdf files are also surveys.  You have to dig into

the references until you get the point.  Anything that looks like

or smells like a primitive is probably an accordion word.

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    (01)