uom-ontology-std
[Top] [All Lists]

## Re: [uom-ontology-std] What is mass?

 To: Gunther Schadow uom-ontology-std Pat Hayes Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:39:25 -0500
 ``` On Sep 28, 2009, at 1:54 PM, Gunther Schadow wrote:    (01) > Is there some way we can converge on something? > > Could we make a list of requirements described by examples > for each of the capabilities of the theory. > > So, from my UCUM perspective, I would want to know, for > every operation what the result would be. It's like a list > of unit test cases that I would use to test my implementation. > > 1 = 1 : true or false? > > 1 N.m = 1 N.m : true or false?    (02) Both obviously, necessarily, logically true.    (03) > > 1 m = 100 cm : true or false?    (04) true    (05) > > 1 L/L = 1 kg/kg : true or false?    (06) No idea until you tell me what you mean by division or ratio here. In one understanding, L/L would be a pure number, making the equation true. But I suspect you do not mean this.    (07) > > 1 m = 1.00 m : true or false?    (08) Depends on whether you consider 1 = 1.00. In other words, its nothing to do with meters. But I'd say, yes. (On the grounds that I presume this is meant to address issues of precision in quantity specifications, and I believe they should be relegated to another topic.)    (09) > > 1.0 m = 1.001 m : true or false?    (010) Similar, but I'd say false in this case. Certainly 1.0 =/= 1.001    (011) > > 0 m = 0 kg : true or false?    (012) false.    (013) > > We would make a table of these statements, and add any sort > of detail to them that we want to exemplify cases in which > the equivalence (or any other) relation holds. > > Then we can use that to come down to one list of requirements > and we only need to formulate the theory around those > requirements. We can also challenge the requirements right > then and there and argue why the relation should or should > not hold in that case.    (014) We could, but I think this would be a step backwards. Even if we all agree, we will still not know if we have a common ontology; and if we disagree, the discussions will only reveal the divergences of thought that we are already discussing.    (015) Pat Hayes    (016) > > I feel like unless we do this, any candidate theory that we > look at here can be shot down because it fails to distinguish > something that some (but not all) on this list would want to > distinguish. So, can we make a table? May be on the Wiki where > we can maintain a nice table of examples? > > thanks, > -Gunther > > > > > > > Pat Hayes wrote: >> On Sep 28, 2009, at 10:13 AM, ingvar_johansson wrote: >> >>> Dear Pat, >>> >>> you wrote: >>>> Agreed, but they too often stray from being an arriving at a common >>>> understanding, into what might be called a confusion of amateur >>>> ontology-hacking. The current noise about 'equivalence >>>> classes' (with >>>> no mention of any equivalence relations) is a good example. >>> If you were thinking of me, I took it for granted that the relation >>> is a >>> similarity relation. >> >> Hmm. But 'similar to' is typically not transitive, so not an >> equivalence relation. >> >>> Take mass as an example. If one wants to take one's departure in >>> individual instances of mass (what VIM calls quantity values of >>> mass), >>> then generic quantity values such as 1.53 kg and 137.999 kg can be >>> regarded as being classes of exactly similar instances >> >> 'similar' in what sense? The only useful sense that I can determine >> is >> that they are both measures of the same quantity. So all this >> equivalence-class talk does not eliminate the idea of kind of >> quantity, or reduce it to something conceptually simpler or ontology >> more fundamental. >> >> BTW, the fact that one has to start with 'individual instances of >> mass' is itself a large mark against this POV, as these individual >> instances are ontologically useless and intuitively very opaque. I >> personally do not think they exist. If they do, then each act of >> measurement measures a distinct one of them, distinct - indeed, >> *necessarily* distinct - from those measured by all other acts of >> measurement. Regardless of the authority of the VIM, this seems to me >> to be close to incoherent as a basis for a theory of measurement. >> >>> ; and the dimension >>> mass can be regarded as the class of all such equivalence classes >>> whose >>> instances are physical-chemically comparable. >> >> Well, perhaps it can, but what is gained by this re-regarding? This >> account is certainly not simpler or easier to formalize than the one >> which has kinds-of-quantity as an explicit concept. If we are going >> to >> be strictly mathematical about it, in fact, they are exactly >> equivalent (each can be defined from the other, with some basic >> mathematical assumptions such as the axiom of choice); but the >> equivalence-class way of talking is less natural and more long- >> winded, >> without adding any insight or expressiveness. >> >> Best >> >> Pat Hayes >> >> PS. Another remark about QVMs. You appeal to a similarity relation of >> 'being a measurement of the same quantity kind'. But there are many >> other possible such relations, among them 'being made using the same >> apparatus', 'being a measurement made at the same time of day', etc.. >> These are all mathematical equivalence relations, and all could count >> as 'similarity' relationships. What is that distinguishes your >> particular relationship form the many others? >> >>> Best, >>> Ingvar >>> >>> >>> _________________________________________________________________ >>> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uom-ontology-std/ >>> Subscribe: mailto:uom-ontology-std-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>> Config/Unsubscribe: >http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/uom-ontology-std/ >>> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UoM/ >>> Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UoM_Ontology_Standard >>> >>> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 >> 3973 >> 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office >> Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax >> FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile >> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _________________________________________________________________ >> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uom-ontology-std/ >> Subscribe: mailto:uom-ontology-std-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> Config/Unsubscribe: >http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/uom-ontology-std/ >> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UoM/ >> Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UoM_Ontology_Standard >> > > -- > Gunther Schadow, M.D., Ph.D. gschadow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Associate Professor Indiana University School of Informatics > Regenstrief Institute, Inc. Indiana University School of Medicine > tel:1(317)423-5521 http://aurora.regenstrief.org > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The contents of this message and any files > transmitted with it may contain confidential and/or privileged > information and are intended solely for the use of the named > addressee(s). Additionally, the information contained herein may have > been disclosed to you from medical records with confidentiality > protected by federal and state laws. Federal regulations and State > laws prohibit you from making further disclosure of such information > without the specific written consent of the person to whom the > information pertains or as otherwise permitted by such regulations. A > general authorization for the release of medical or other information > is not sufficient for this purpose. If you have received this message > in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete the > original message. Any retention, disclosure, copying, distribution or > use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is > strictly prohibited. > > _________________________________________________________________ > Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uom-ontology-std/ > Subscribe: mailto:uom-ontology-std-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Config/Unsubscribe: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/uom-ontology-std/ > Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UoM/ > Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UoM_Ontology_Standard > >    (017) ------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes    (018) _________________________________________________________________ Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uom-ontology-std/ Subscribe: mailto:uom-ontology-std-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Config/Unsubscribe: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/uom-ontology-std/ Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UoM/ Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UoM_Ontology_Standard    (019) ```
 Current Thread Re: [uom-ontology-std] What is mass?, (continued) Re: [uom-ontology-std] What is mass?, John F. Sowa Re: [uom-ontology-std] What is mass?, Chris Partridge Re: [uom-ontology-std] What is mass?, John F. Sowa Re: [uom-ontology-std] What is mass?, Pat Hayes Re: [uom-ontology-std] What is mass?, ingvar_johansson Re: [uom-ontology-std] What is mass?, Pat Hayes Re: [uom-ontology-std] What is mass?, Gunther Schadow Re: [uom-ontology-std] What is mass?, Duane Nickull Re: [uom-ontology-std] What is mass?, Gunther Schadow Re: [uom-ontology-std] What is mass?, ingvar_johansson Re: [uom-ontology-std] What is mass?, Pat Hayes <= Re: [uom-ontology-std] What is mass?, ingvar_johansson Re: [uom-ontology-std] What is mass?, Duane Nickull Re: [uom-ontology-std] What is mass?, Gunther Schadow Re: [uom-ontology-std] What is mass?, ingvar_johansson Re: [uom-ontology-std] What is mass?, Mike Bennett Re: [uom-ontology-std] What is mass?, ingvar_johansson Re: [uom-ontology-std] What is mass?, Chris Partridge Re: [uom-ontology-std] What is mass?, ingvar_johansson Re: [uom-ontology-std] What is mass?, Joe Collins Re: [uom-ontology-std] What is mass?, ingvar_johansson