doug: (01)
I have no objections - just want to clarify few points (02)
> There is no reason to represent the "infinite and open world" for any
> application. (03)
I think it's too strong (04)
For the future quantum computers we possibly will operate with the real and
actual infinity (non-locality at least) of applications. The bio-systems
might also have something "non-mechanical" (that cannot be represented
formally without "denotation" of the infinity as a "working detail") (05)
> Note that an NP-hard problem, may, for restricted input be easy to solve
> rapidly. Such solutions can be used and often are. (06)
It's true. Some "incorrect" heuristics may work better than formally correct
algorithms but what's behind of the "context" and "heuristics"? (07)
I suspect that the contexts could be (and probably are) the "infinite and
open worlds", as well as the "heuristics" are sort of the magic and miracle
real stuff which we want to eliminate from our serious daily life - except
from the life of the little kids, of course - they still need St.Clause :)
Should adults research and develope such "fairy tails" skills? Or the
working heuristics and inventions are just inevitable logical sequences of
the set of rules, ideas, concepts that have to be formally formulated in
the ultimate and universal ontology (the dream and goal of ontologists)? (08)
yuri (09)
> -- doug
>
>> Have fun
>> Yuri (010)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2012/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (011)
|