To: | "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
---|---|
From: | rrovetto@xxxxxxxxxxx |
Date: | Wed, 25 Jun 2014 16:48:44 -0400 |
Message-id: | <CADM4J9yOx8FKrNueC0SEqb6yH-NLQ7upkuLDtENmprdvUFegJw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
A Summary of what's been said thus far w/follow-up Questions
- Please correct, or add, where needed. Thank you. Aside from the links provided... Defining mechanisms for classes (as opposed to sets) 1) An A is a B that C - genus-species w/differentia, where differentia is some property or otherwise 2) An A is a B and a C - conjunctive genus-species. Does this yield multiple inheritance? 3) An A is a B or a C or a ...N - disjunctive genus-species 4) ... others? Reasoning mechanisms distinct from (that do not use?) syllogistic logic - induction - analogy reasoning systems - statistical reasoning - calculus(?) - "exotic mathematical methods" - analogy-reasoning - hybrid -- fuzzy - nat lang (e.g. Phil's thesis) - @Alex: how would you call the non-fol def you originally mentioned (the VPC example)? - neural network reasoning - production reasoning @Alex: You said "there are a lot of work in science and technology using FOL++ &@. Where it does not matter how human being does thinking, but how things are." What do you mean by 'FOL++ &@', and "[...]but how things are"? Isn't how we think one of the things that are? JS says: - statements about more general terms is integral to every natural language (where nat lang is understood to be English, Spanish, etc.) - FOL is used b/c it's considered a subset of every NL, in virtue of NL conjunctive, disjunctive and quantifier words. - "All other logics are subsets, supersets, or variations of FOL. Fuzzy logic, for example, assumes a continuous range of fuzzy levels from absolutely certain (true) to absolutely not certain (false)." Do others agree with this last statement? If so, does this mean that the above list are variations of FOL, which in turn is based on or contains syllogistic logic? And does this in turn mean that all existing logics are in some part or form syllogistic? If so, then are there possibilities for non-sylogistic logics? (in spite of the above points) On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Barkmeyer, Edward J <edward.barkmeyer@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
_________________________________________________________________ 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) |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Types of Formal (logical) Definitions in ontology, John F Sowa |
---|---|
Next by Date: | [ontolog-forum] FW: Reminder: ONTOLOG Going Forward: session this Thu 2014.06.26 with ONTOLOG Board of Trustees, Obrst, Leo J. |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Types of Formal (logical) Definitions in ontology, Barkmeyer, Edward J |
Next by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Types of Formal (logical) Definitions in ontology, David Whitten |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |