uom-ontology-std
[Top] [All Lists]

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

 To: Joe Collins uom-ontology-std Pat Hayes Wed, 30 Sep 2009 10:48:49 -0500 <2988A5B9-EBF7-44F6-AF2C-89E0CAC56D33@xxxxxxx>
 ``` On Sep 29, 2009, at 10:30 PM, Joe Collins wrote:    (01) > Pat, > > > 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. > > You are correct in that approximately equal, not being transitive, > can not be an equivalence relation. > > In that case, I must conclude that > > > 1 m = 1.00 m : true or false? > > is false    (02) ?? I am gobsmacked, both by the conclusion and by the logic. Why is 1 only approximately equal to 1.00 ? The bare numeral '1' refers to the number one. The decimal numeral '1.00' refers to the sum of the number one, zero tenths and zero hundreths. I believe if you do the addition, that also comes to one.    (03) > > > Why? I don't think our ontology is intended to be restricted to > use only > > by physical scientists. > > 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. > > > 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.) > > 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., > > > 1 m = 1.00 m : true or false? > > then *WE* must say false, simply because "1" and "1.00" have > different symbols.    (04) No, that is a logical mistake. The question wasn't about the symbols, whether '1 m' equalled '1.00 m'.    (05) > 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.    (06) We have to assume some meaning or the question is meaningless. In fact, there isn't even a question to be answered. > > I was trying to expressly add a reasonable meaning. > > In either case, now I say FALSE and FALSE. > > > Let me recall your response: > >> 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.) > > Were you doing that "hallucinating" thing when filling in the > missing meaning here?    (07) I was guessing, true.    (08) Pat    (09) > > Regards, /:^) > Joe C. > > -- > _______________________________ > 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 > _______________________________ >    (010) ------------------------------------------------------------ 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    (011) _________________________________________________________________ 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    (012) ```
 Current Thread Re: [uom-ontology-std] What is mass?, (continued) Re: [uom-ontology-std] What is mass?, Gunther Schadow Re: [uom-ontology-std] What is mass?, Chris Partridge Re: [uom-ontology-std] What is mass?, Gunther Schadow Re: [uom-ontology-std] What is mass?, Pat Hayes Re: [uom-ontology-std] What is mass?, Pat Hayes Re: [uom-ontology-std] What is mass?, Pat Hayes Re: [uom-ontology-std] What is mass?, Joe Collins Re: [uom-ontology-std] What is mass?, Pat Hayes Re: [uom-ontology-std] What is mass?, Joe Collins Re: [uom-ontology-std] What is mass?, Duane Nickull Re: [uom-ontology-std] What is mass?, Pat Hayes <= Re: [uom-ontology-std] What is mass?, Joe Collins Re: [uom-ontology-std] What is mass?, Duane Nickull Re: [uom-ontology-std] What is mass?, Pat Hayes Re: [uom-ontology-std] What is mass?, Pat Hayes 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?, Pat Hayes Re: [uom-ontology-std] What is mass?, Pat Hayes Re: [uom-ontology-std] What is mass?, Matthew West