Well, it’s not the right forum for this, Rich. It was a throw-away line.
Thanks,
Leo
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Rich Cooper
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 5:16 PM
To: '[ontolog-forum] ' <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] A Question About Mathematical Logic
Dear Leo,
I'm interested in your view of the capitalist/socialist spectrum of philosophy, (since I don't have to program it), especially where you typed:
For advanced capitalism, there are still many feudal aspects carried forward. Rants about socialism aside, there are still systemic errors
in the way both commercial business and government business gets done.
There is one basic atom of capitalism - the transaction. The transaction has two roles: buyer and seller; one entity: a "Thing" in the symbolic sense; and of
course an Amount. So you could write a function that relates every purchase order and every line item to fit in the template:
Transact( Thing, Buyer, Seller, Amount );
Everything else is built by links between transactions, resulting in a graphset of transactions. Could you explain what systemic error you are describing?
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper,
Rich Cooper,
Chief Technology Officer,
MetaSemantics Corporation
MetaSemantics AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
( 9 4 9 ) 5 2 5-5 7 1 2
http://www.EnglishLogicKernel.com
Unfortunately, as you and others have pointed out, it is not just government, but business/commerce as usual. For advanced capitalism, there are still many feudal
aspects carried forward. Rants about socialism aside, there are still systemic errors in the way both commercial business and government business gets done.
We try to address technical impediments to interoperability, both data and system in nature, by advocating higher-level semantic interoperability via use of ontologies,
which can indeed help solve those issues. But underneath are the other aspects of interoperability, syntactic, structural, programmatic, and of course, the hardest problem, sociological issues, i.e., people and their organizations and those organizations’
behaviors and procedures. The cortex still has the reptilian brain underneath: both a blessing and a curse. And we monkey people are still dancing on the savanna, glad to have come down from the trees and picked up weapons.
Thanks,
Leo
Dear Hans,
You wrote:
Given all that, the approach I generally recommend is to increase scope during early concept development and architectural framework
design, but shrink scope during actual development/implementation to the immediate needs of the program,
but in such a way that the larger scope is kept in mind so as not to make design and implementation decisions that preclude or needlessly complicate the implementation of the larger scope later on in program evolution.
You wrote further:
The Internet mantra version of this is “Think big, start small, scale fast”, although the scale fast part is a bit problematic from a
government business model perspective – i.e., there is no source of venture capital or growing product revenue stream that can be fed back into a program
– except in the case of rotating capital fund entities (I was involved in one such effort in DoD and it was very successful precisely because it had this ability to fund itself rather than relying strictly on budgeted funds) .
That is indeed at least one of the crucial missing ingredients to run govt contractors in the internet mode of efficiency and extreme investments. But also,
the contractors get a tiny percentage of the system cost as their final profit - the gov't is terrifically motivated to CYA by blaming any missing features on the contractors, and that requires exhaustive documentation to prove in court.
John Sowa once suggested that the gov't be given some profit making functions. If that could be done, it might provide an incentive for some gov't contractors
to take risks, but they would have to also get commensurate rewards to make those risks worth taking.
I don't have much confidence in a profit making gov't per se though, given how badly the supposedly self funding Patent and Trademark Office has been robbed of
its fees and undermined by congress to the point of causing long, commercially unacceptable delays in patent processing. Given just that one example, it hasn't worked. But there are semi commercial gov't entities, like the TVA, which at one time at least
were profit making.
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper,
Rich Cooper,
Chief Technology Officer,
MetaSemantics Corporation
MetaSemantics AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
( 9 4 9 ) 5 2 5-5 7 1 2
http://www.EnglishLogicKernel.com
Leo, Rich:
There are valid reasons to take both positions, depending on the business model context. There are reasons I am often called the SCOPE creep – adding scope and
anticipating change does increase complexity, schedule, and, of course, cost. The issue is that in certain business contexts, most government system development contracts being one of them, there is essentially no way to compensate those who make the initial
investment on system “A” by the developers of systems “B”, “C”, etc., who might benefit from that initial investment by system “A” – but which is not strictly needed to accomplish system “A”’s mission. There have been several industry association study reports
to DoD on this point, but the acquisition laws and congressional politics/sociology make it very difficult to pragmatically overcome this business model problem. Essentially the problem is that the government is not structured to do business with itself on
a bottom up basis (rotating capital accounts are the exception – and generally frowned upon by congress). It all has to be done top down through the programming and budgeting process, i.e., central planning, and there is an inherent bias against making programs
too broad in scope (for good reason).
Given all that, the approach I generally recommend is to increase scope during early concept development and architectural framework design, but shrink scope
during actual development/implementation to the immediate needs of the program, but in such a way that the larger scope is kept in mind so as not to make design and implementation decisions that preclude or needlessly complicate the implementation of the larger
scope later on in program evolution. The Internet mantra version of this is “Think big, start small, scale fast”, although the scale fast part is a bit problematic from a government business model perspective – i.e., there is no source of venture capital or
growing product revenue stream that can be fed back into a program – except in the case of rotating capital fund entities (I was involved in one such effort in DoD and it was very successful precisely because it had this ability to fund itself rather than
relying strictly on budgeted funds) .
Hans
Sorry, Rich, this is a method to perpetuate silos, not to address, at least partially, interoperability issues with every project. In the DoD (and I worked at
Boeing at one time), the typical contractor problem (or one of those) is that you don’t generalize or consider interoperability issues on any given budget/funding. You blindly follow today’s requirements, provide a system that approximates those. Then you
do it again, and again, and again. It’s a way to keep getting funded, because everyone at some point needs your stuff. So you create silo after silo after silo. Then at some point another program comes up that focuses on interoperability, and then it pays
for the vast interoperability issues based on a hundred silos. And guess what, some of the same companies that created the silos now get to correct their lack of interoperability. Which is at that point, much more complex, and much more costly, and typically
fails.
Engineering with blinders and halters is not good engineering.
Thanks,
Leo
Dear Tom,
Your emails are showing very, very small text fonts. So I copied an repasted in larger font to make it more readable. You wrote:
But if later on, someone wants to create a unified ontology of income-producing instruments for a vertical industry group, then each
company's ontology fragment has to be integrated/bridged to the others.
The financial issue is who is going to pay for the
later on work. That is, by definition, a change in the requirements. It is
that change which I was speaking about in the earlier emails. I understand and agree that situations like the one you described are common. But the original development should not be burdened with the requirement, which sacrifices costs, schedules, functionality
and performance of the software system. I don't believe in the practice of "paying ahead"
by adding the extra cost, schedule, complexity, computing load, storage areas, and representations needed to add the extra functions that just MIGHT be needed in the future, but aren't needed at the first development.
I have no argument with using philosophical concepts (even the Xdurants, which nobody but philosophers care about), so long as they bring an
immediate benefit, not a
possible, forecast, to be considered, future requirement.
If you could come up with a scenario showing why it is useful in the FIRST system, before the requirement actually does change, and justify it by that benefit
alone, not by the possible future benefit which may never arrive.
Can you show better functionality, or better completeness, or some such measure of effectiveness (MOE) on the FIRST system for adding that stuff?
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper,
Rich Cooper,
Chief Technology Officer,
MetaSemantics Corporation
MetaSemantics AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
( 9 4 9 ) 5 2 5-5 7 1 2
http://www.EnglishLogicKernel.com
From: Thomas Johnston [mailto:tmj44p@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 9:29 AM
To: Rich Cooper; '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] A Question About Mathematical Logic
I don't think I have misunderstood the engineers in this thread, and I haven't seen any comments yet that persuade me I have.
Your "Philosophy", if it's in reference to my comments, is formal ontology, especially upper-level ontology. I do agree that lower-level ontology
fragments -- product hierarchies is an example I often use -- can stand alone, without any "philosophical justification". But if later on, someone wants to create a unified ontology of income-producing instruments for a vertical industry group, then each company's
ontology fragment has to be integrated/bridged to the others. Suppose company X doesn't distinguish between products (e.g. tile for a bathroom) and services (the installation of those tiles in a customer's home); X has an ontology which includes ":installed
bathroom flooring", but company Y, on the other hand, has no such item in its inventory. For Y, floor tiling is a product, and installation is a service that uses that product.
The "philosophical" question here is whether the mid-level ontology (for the vertical industry group) should include "installed product" as
an ontological category. Whether or not it does, X and the other companies who use "installed product" as a category, or Y and the other companies who do not, will have to do a lot of database re-engineering in order to conform to the industry group ontology.
"Doing philosophy", in the sense of establishing ontologies, gets right down to nitty-gritty software engineering work for the engineers who thought that high-flown upper-level ontology work was irrlevant to the practical work that engineers do.
Later on, even upper-level ontologies can become relevant to such nitty-gritty work as re-engineering databases. In scientific databases, it
matters whether space and time are represented as discrete or continuous. With respect to my own work, I have suggested that distinguishing three temporal dimensions in databases enables us to record and retrieve important information that the ISO-standard
two temporal dimensions cannot. And I would emphasize that introducing a third temporal dimension was not just a matter of adjusting software to manage temporal triples instead of temporal pairs. If that's all it were, then a software engineer might think
that every date/time piece of metadata for the rows of a database table would constitute a new temporal "dimension"; and that outlook has lighted many fools the way to dusty software death.
Instead, a third temporal dimension is introduced based on the "philosophical" distinction between (i) inscriptions of declarative sentences
(rows in tables), (ii) the statement that multiple copies of the same row are inscriptions of; (iii) the propositions that synonymous statements are expressions of; and (iv) the propositional attitudes that users of databases express when they update databases,
and presuppose when they query those databases. It is also based on an extension of Aristotle's basic ontology, an extension which I describe in Chapter 5 of my oft-alluded-to book.
This is doing philosophy, in anyone's book. It is what led me to recognize the existence of a new ontological category -- the temporal dimension
I called "speech-act time" in my book. Ontology engineers who plug in lexical items for concepts in non-controversial fragments of ontologies, don't have to do ontology. In that, I agree with you. But once those engineers are tasked with extending their constructs
beyond the non-controversial scope of those constructs, they get in trouble (cf my "customer" example, also my "installed product" and third temporal dimension discussed in this comment). They get in trouble because they are then confronted with the need to
do ontology; they enter an arena in which they will be forced to "do philosophy" -- which is something that they feel in their guts (and have often expressed in this forum) is irrelevant to the "REAL" work that engineers do.
I don't expect to convince you. But I do believe it's worth trying to say, as clearly as I can, what my understanding of the issue of doing
formal ontology vs. doing ontology engineering is. My understanding is that both are important, that, to paraphrase Kant, "ontology without engineering is empty; engineering without ontology is blind".
I have seen several remarks, by the engineers among us, about
ontology and semantics being irrelevant to the work they do, being irrelevant, as you put it, to "real engineering problems". But I have also seen the confusion engineers create when they work with anything other than uncontroversial ontology
fragments, e.g. a company's product hierarchy.
No! You're missing the point about engineering.
Philosophical justifications for ontologies is what I, perhaps among others, disagree with. But the
need for an ontology within a complex software architecture, and therefore the need for clear precise
semantics for interpreting that ontology's components, in all situations, is a
primary engineering concern.
It is only the philosophy part, the attempt to link application ontologies to some overarching totality of existential ontology insisted upon
from that philosophical perspective that perturbs this engineer, likely others. Its adding unnecessary
complexity to the architecture of the software, which should be minimized, not expanded.
Every addition of one more component to an ontology drives its complexity up in an exponential curve. Not a good thing for developing software
especially. So adding even more components having only philosophical justification and not specifically
application justification is the wrong direction, IMHO.
Chief Technology Officer,
MetaSemantics Corporation
MetaSemantics AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
From: Thomas Johnston [mailto:tmj44p@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 6:05 PM
To: Rich Cooper; '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] A Question About Mathematical Logic
Like an earlier comment, yours emphasizes, I believe, the need to discuss (i) the difference between formal ontology and ontology engineering
(which is roughly the difference between theory and practice), and (ii) the problems that arise when ontology engineers finding themselves having to do ontology, rather than having to just plug uncontroversial mini-ontologies into some well-defined framework
(like Protege) or into a framework/template toolkit like OWL/RDF. I intend to do this in a new thread, and soon.
I have seen several remarks, by the engineers among us, about ontology and semantics being irrelevant to the work they do, being irrelevant,
as you put it, to "real engineering problems". But I have also seen the confusion engineers create when they work with anything other than uncontroversial ontology fragments, e.g. a company's product hierarchy.
As an ontologist, and a person somewhat familiar with systems of logic, I nonetheless appreciate the importance of getting ontologies into frameworks.
That, in my opinion, is what puts the semantics in the Semantic Web -- it gives automated systems, doing cross-database queries, the ability to understand cross-database semantics. (Pat Hayes to correct me, please, if I'm off course here.)
An example I have come across in every one of two dozen enterprises I have worked for, is the question: "What is a customer?", where that question,
more fully, means "What does your enterprise take a customer of yours to be?" I have never found subject matter experts who have been able to answer that question, without a good deal of help from me. And the help I provide is help in doing ontology clarification
work, not help in plugging lexical items representing ontological categories into an ontology tool. Moreover, I have never found two enterprises whose experts defined "customer" in exactly the same way.
From which it follows that a cross-database query that assumes that two tables named "Customer Table", in two different enterprise's databases,
are both about customers, is almost certain to be mistaken. Both tables may be about fruit, but there is certain to be an apples and oranges issue there.
A formal ontology which includes customers, on the other hand, might be able to distinguish apples from oranges if it could access an ontology
framework about customers. Given that the concepts have been correctly and extensively-enough clarified, here is where the ontology engineer proves his worth.
But to define the category Customer clearly enough, it isn't engineering work that needs to be done. It's the far more difficult (in my opinion)
ontology clarification work that needs to be done. (I expand on this example in the section "On Using Ontologies", pp. 73-74 in my book Bitemporal Data: Theory and Practice. I think I also elaborated on it a few weeks or months ago, here at Ontolog.)
So I think that engineers who suggest that clarifying ontological categories is irrelevant to their work as ontology engineers, are mistaken.
Such work seems mistaken to them, I think, because most of the ontologies they put into their well-defined frameworks are relatively trivial, i.e. are ontologies that subject matter experts have no trouble agreeing on. The lower-level the ontologies we engineer,
the more that will tend to be the case.
But ascend into mid-level or upper-level ontologies, and ontology engineers get lost, and don't know how to find a clear path through the forest
whose trees are those categories. And so instead of admitting "We're lost", they say instead "We strayed into a swamp that has nothing to do with the real engineering work we do -- which turns out to be the relatively straightforward work of plugging labels
for uncontroversial ontological categories, and taxonomies thereof, into Protege or its like".
I say, on the contrary, that conceptual clarification work in mid- and upper-level ontologies have everything to do with ontology engineering,
and are where the really difficult work of that engineering is done. An analogy: machine-tooling parts is the hard work of manufacturing; assembling those parts is the easy work.
And my apologies to Leo, Pat and other whose comments on my question I have not yet responded to. I will, and soon. And I thank them and all
other respondents for helping me think through the question I raised.
Although the approach you are suggesting might entertain some philosophical questions, and therefore be entertaining to philosophers, it has
little or no relevance to real engineering problems, which almost never are applied to the actual universe of every possible entity - i.e. infinite supplies.
In engineering applications, Ex(...) would normally apply only to finite sized, or traversably infinite sized, problems. The importance of
scope in engineering, i.e., where you draw the lines around what is a system, which contains all the entities, enumerators of variables, constants and functions in real problems.
Even unbounded engineering problems have limits to the possible types that can be used, though mechanisms like stacks, or even Turing machines
with infinite square supplies, attempt to approximate boundless sizes.
So I suggest your title should be A Question About Mathematical Logic, since engineers who consider themselves logic designers would find the
ideas impractical, though linguists might be more interested.
Chief Technology Officer,
MetaSemantics Corporation
MetaSemantics AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
Suppose someone else asserts, instead, that "No dogs are renates". Certainly, to do that, that person must believe that there are such things
as dogs and, in addition, believe that none of them are renates (a false belief, of course).
On Tuesday, October 13, 2015 11:57 AM, Thomas Johnston <tmj44p@xxxxxxx> wrote:
My intuitions tell me that anyone who asserts "All dogs are renates" believes that there are dogs (i.e. is ontologically committed to the existence
of dogs) just as much as someone who asserts "Some dogs are friendly".
Suppose someone else asserts, instead, that "No dogs are renates". Certainly, to do that, that person must believe that there are such things
as dogs and, in addition, believe that some of them are not renates (a false belief, of course).
Now for "Some dogs are friendly", and also "Some dogs are not friendly". In both cases, we all seem to agree, someone making those assertions
believes that there are dogs.
Now I'm quite happy about all this. If I make a Gricean-rule serious assertion by using either the "All" quantification or the "Some" quantification,
I'm talking about whatever is the subject term in those quantifications – dogs in this case. I'm particularly happy that negation, as it appears in the deMorgan's translations between "All" statements and "Some" statements, doesn't claim that a pair of statements
are semantically equivalent, in which one of the pair expresses a belief that dogs exist but the other does not.
But in the standard interpretation of predicate logic, that is the interpretation. In the standard interpretation, negating a statement creates
or removes the _expression_ of a belief that something exists. My beliefs in what exist can't be changed by the use of the negation operator. Apparently, John's beliefs can, and so too for everyone else who feels comfortable with predicate logic as a formalization
of commonsense reasoning, and with the interpretation of one of its operators as "There exists ....".
I usually don't like getting into tit for tats. Those kinds of discussions always are about trees, and take attention away from the forest.
But I'll make exceptions when I think it's worth taking that risk (as I did in my response to Ed last night).
From John Sowa's Oct 12th response:
TJ
> why, in the formalization of predicate logic, was it decided
> that "Some X" would carry ontological commitment
Nobody made that decision. It's a fact of perception. Every
observation can always be described with just two operators:
existential quantifier and conjunction. No other operators can
be observed. They can only be inferred.
(1) If all ontological commitments have to be based on direct observation, then we're right back to the Vienna Circle and A. J. Ayer.
(2) And what is it that we directly observe? A dog in front of me? Dogs, as Quine once pointed out, are ontological posits on a par with the
Greek gods, or with disease-causing demons. (I am aware that this point, in particular, will likely serve to reinforce the belief, on the part of many engineering types in this forum, that philosophy has nothing to do with ontology engineering. That's something
I want to discuss in a "contextualizing discussion" I want to have before I pester the members of this forum with questions and hypotheses about cognitive/diachronic semantics. What does talk like that have to do with building real-world ontologies in ontology
tools, in OWL/RDF – ontologies that actually do something useful in the world?
(3) I wouldn't talk about some dogs unless I believed that some dogs exist. And if some dogs exist, then all dogs do, too. Either there are
dogs, or there aren't. If there are, then I can talk about some of them, or about all of them. If there aren't, then unless I am explicitly talking about non-existent things, I can't talk about some of them nor can I talk about all of them, for the simple
reason that none of them exist. To repeat myself: if any of them exist, then all of them do.
(4) And I am, of course, completely aware that trained logicians since Frege have been using predicate logic, and that, at least since deMorgan,
have been importing to negation the power to create and remove ontological commitment.
(5) Here's a quote from Paul Vincent Spade (very important guy in medieval logic and
semantics):
"This doctrine of “existential import” has taken a lot of silly abuse in the twentieth century. As you may know, the modern reading of universal
affirmatives construes them as quantified material conditionals. Thus ‘Every S is P’ becomes (x)(Sx
⊃ Px), and is true, not false, if there are no S’s. Hence (x)(Sx
⊃ Px) does not imply (∃x)(Sx).
And that is somehow supposed to show the failure of existential import. But it doesn’t show anything of the sort .... "
So Spade approaches this as the issue of the existential import of universally quantified statements. He points out that, from Ux(Dx --> Rx),
we cannot infer Ex(Dx & Rx). The rest of the passage attempts to explain why. I still either don't understand his argument, or I'm not convinced by it. Why should "All dogs are renates" not be expressed as Ux(Dx & Rx)?
From John's reply, I think he would say that it's because we can only observe particular things; we can't observe all things. But in the preceding
points, I've tried to say why I don't find that convincing.
(6) Simply the fact that decades of logicians have not raised the concerns I have raised strongly suggests that I am mistaken, and need to think
more clearly about logic and ontological commitment. But there is something that might make one hesitate to jump right to that conclusion. It's Kripke's position on analytic a posteriori statements (which I have difficulty distinguishing from Kant's synthetic
a priori statements, actually -- providing we assume that the metaphors of "analytic" as finding that one thing is "contained in" another thing, and of "synthetic" as bringing together two things first experienced as distinct, are just metaphors, and don't
work as solid explanations).
All analytic statements are "All" statements, not "Some" statements. Kripke suggests that the statement "Water is H2O" is analytic but a posteriori.
In general, that "natural kind" statements are all of this sort. Well, a posteriori statements are ones verified by experience, and so that would take care of John's Peircean point that only "Some" statements are grounded in what we experience.
I don't know how solid this line of thought is. But if there is something to it, that might suggest that if we accept Kripke's whole referential
semantics / rigid designator / natural kinds ideas (cf. Putnam's twin earth thought experiment also), then perhaps we should rethink the traditional metalogical interpretation of "All dogs are renates" as Ux(Dx --> Rx), and consider, instead, Ux(Dx & Rx).
Well, two summing-up points. The first is that Paul Vincent Spade thinks that my position is "silly", and John Sowa thinks that it's at least
wrong. The second is that such discussions do indeed take us beyond the concerns of ontology engineers, who just want to get on with building working ontologies.
As I said above, I will address those concerns of ontology engineers before I begin discussing cognitive semantics in this Ontolog (Ontology
+ Logic) forum.
Tom, Ed, Leo, Paul, Henson,
TJ
> why, in the formalization of predicate logic, was it decided
> that "Some X" would carry ontological commitment
Nobody made that decision. It's a fact of perception. Every
observation can always be described with just two operators:
existential quantifier and conjunction. No other operators can
be observed. They can only be inferred.
EJB
> I was taught formal logic as a mathematical discipline, not
> a philosophical discipline. I do not believe that mathematics
> has any interest in ontological commitment.
That's true. And most of the people who developed formal logic
in the 20th c were mathematicians. They didn't worry about
the source or reliability of the starting axioms.
Leo
> most ontologists of the realist persuasion will argue that there
> are no negated/negative ontological things.
Whatever their persuasion, nobody can observe a negation. It's
always an inference or an assumption.
PT
> on the inadequacy of mathematical logic for reasoning about
> the real world, see Veatch, "Intentional Logic: a logic based on
> philosophical realism".
Many different logics can be and have been formalized for various
purposes. They may have different ontological commitments built in,
but the distinction of what is observed or inferred is critical.
HG
> I keep wondering if this forum has anything useful to offer the
> science and engineering community.
C. S. Peirce was deeply involved in experimental physics and
engineering. He was also employed as an associate editor of the
_Century Dictionary_, for which he wrote, revised, or edited over
16,000 definitions. My comments below are based on CSP's writings:
1. Any sensory perception is evidence that something exists;
a simultaneous perception of something A and something B
is evidence for (Ex)(Ey)(A(x) & B(y)).
2. Evidence for other operators must *always* be an inference:
(a) Failure to observe P(x) does not mean there is no P.
Example: "There is no hippopotamus in this room"
can only be inferred iff you have failed to observe
a hippo and know that it is big enough that you would
certainly have noticed one if it were present.
(b) (p or q) cannot be directly observed. But you might infer
that a particular observation (e.g. "the room is lighted")
could be the result of two or more sources.
(c) (p implies q) cannot be observed, as Hume discussed at length.
(d) a universal quantifier can never be observed. No matter
how many examples of P(x) you see, you can never know that
you've seen them all (unless you have other information
that guarantees you have seen them all).
TJ
> But now notice something: negation creates and removes ontological
> commitment. And this seems really strange. Why should negation do this?
The commitment is derived from the same background knowledge that
enabled you to assert (or prevented you from asserting) the negation.
> I'd also like to know if there are formal logics which do not
> impute this extravagant power of ontological commitment /
> de-commitment to the negation operator in predicate logics.
Most formal logicians don't think about these issues -- for the
simple reason that most of them are mathematicians. They don't
think about observation and evidence.
CSP realized the problematical issues with negation, but he also
knew that he needed to assume at least one additional operator.
And negation was the simplest of the lot. Those are the three
he assumed for his existential graphs. (But he later added
metalanguage, modality, and three values -- T, F, and Unknown.)
John
PS: The example "There is no hippopotamus in this room" came from
a remark by Bertrand Russell that he couldn't convince Wittgenstein
that there was no hippopotamus in the room. Russell didn't go
into any detail, but I suspect that Ludwig W. was trying to
explain the point that a negation cannot be observed.
|
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|