ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

[ontolog-forum] (no subject)

To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Chris Partridge" <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 2009年2月13日 14:30:40 -0800 (PST)
Message-id: <20090213223040.B8E5A138C1F@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
0 <20090212214
 848.58D11138CE9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
<39BB8147-1E60-4341-AFA6-6192E76DDA83@xxxxxxxx>
In-Reply-To: <39BB8147-1E60-4341-AFA6-6192E76DDA83@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [ontolog-forum] (no subject)
Date: 2009年2月13日 22:31:24 -0000
Message-ID: <006a01c98e2a$cf18cf106ドルd4a6d30$@net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
thread-index: AcmODbPbUKEMUSfHSU2m/B2ChW7tcwAHC8ng
Content-Language: en-gb  (01)
ChrisM,  (02)
> > So, for example, in the case of the syllogism, the form of the
> > syllogism
> > reflects the transitive nature of the subsumption/subtype relation
> > between
> > types in the world.
>
> There are 256 syllogistic forms; what do you mean by the form of THE
> syllogism? It is, in fact, the case that universal affirmative
> statements "All As are Bs" expresses, in effect, that {x | x is an A}
> is a subclass of {x | x is a B}, so what you *might* mean is that the
> form of a universal affirmative statement represents the subclass
> relation. And it is indeed in virtue of the transitivity of subclass
> that, e.g., a Barbara syllogism is valid. Is that what you have in
> mind?
>  (03) 
Yes. I was referring to the example (I think) John gave - BARBARA.
Thanks for picking this up.  (04)
> Be that as it may, I think your general point is well taken. Every
> logic worth the name comes with a semantics that will involve some
> very high level of ontological commitment. FOL, in particular, is
> committed to, at least, "things" (the range of the quantifiers) and
> "predicables" (the values of predicates). That's pretty thin,
> ontological gruel, however, since things and predicables are the basic
> ingredients of *any possible* ontology, and hence don't distinguish
> one ontology from another. So logic certainly reflects a little
> something about the structure/nature of the world; just not that much.
>  (05) 
ChrisP  (06)
_________________________________________________________________
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
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  (07)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Previous by Date: Re: [ontolog-forum] Relationship: n-ary vs binary , Azamat
Next by Date: Re: [ontolog-forum] Relevance of Aristotelian Logic , John F. Sowa
Previous by Thread: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ur-Elements , paola . dimaio
Next by Thread: [ontolog-forum] An Ultra High Level Ontology , Rich Cooper
Indexes: [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]

AltStyle によって変換されたページ (->オリジナル) /