Pat, (01)
> Well, actually, it is. It means 'the same as'. It does not mean 'nearly
> the same as' or 'not the same as, but so close that I can't measure the
> difference' or 'very likely very close to' or any of these other
> notions. Equal means *equal*. If A=B then there is *one thing* with two
> names, not two things that are very close. (02)
You are correct in that approximately equal, not being transitive, can not be
an
equivalence relation. (03)
In that case, I must conclude that (04)
> 1 m = 1.00 m : true or false? (05)
is false (06)
> Why? I don't think our ontology is intended to be restricted to use only
> by physical scientists. (07)
I don't either. The SI/VIM standard on quantities and units is, however, a
formalized scientific theory. If, in trying to capture it in an alternative
mathematical form for use in computing systems it no longer makes sense to
physical scientists, then it no longer makes sense that relates to the real
world.
It is then of no real use to anyone. (08)
> IMO, this is all beside the point. The question as posed does not
> mention accuracy or measurements or anything else. It simply asks
> whether 1 is the same as 1.00. And I think the only possible answer is,
> yes. (If I were being a computer scientist, I could hallucinate the
> integer/FP distinction onto this question, and then the answer would
> depend upon the programming language I was using; but this very fact is
> evidence that this is not the intended meaning of the question, surely.) (09)
The question as posed is ill defined: there is no definition of the symbols. If
we just take it as given without further definition, i.e., (010)
> 1 m = 1.00 m : true or false? (011)
then *WE* must say false, simply because "1" and "1.00" have different symbols.
To say otherwise without further definition of what the symbols mean is to be
tacitly adding some kind of additional meaning which is not explicitly defined. (012)
I was trying to expressly add a reasonable meaning. (013)
In either case, now I say FALSE and FALSE. (014)
Let me recall your response: (015)
> 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.) (016)
Were you doing that "hallucinating" thing when filling in the missing meaning
here? (017)
Regards, /:^)
Joe C. (018)
--
_______________________________
Joseph B. Collins, Ph.D.
Code 5583, Adv. Info. Tech.
Naval Research Laboratory
Washington, DC 20375
(202) 404-7041
(202) 767-1122 (fax)
B34, R221C
_______________________________ (019)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (020)
|