Re: SUO: Re: nature of organisation
Chris,
I agree. The main point of my note was to get off the topic of
fine points about mathematical sets and classes, and address the
issue of getting a coherent terminology that minimizes confusion
on the major topics that SUMO is addressing.
JS>But for the overwhelming majority of nonmathematicians, a class is
>> a object-oriented notion from C++, Java, etc.
>
CM> True, if the overwhelming majority of nonmathematicians happen to be
> programmers. False otherwise.
The community of people SUMO is addressing includes vastly more
programmers than logicians. But the main point I was trying to make
is that there are many potential consumers of SUMO (including both
logicians and programmers) for whom the word 'class' means something
different from the current SUMO conception, and there are no potential
consumers who would be enlightened by it.
Bottom line: the word 'class' in SUMO creates more confusion than
enlightenment.
JS> To avoid such confusions, I recommend that we drop the word 'class'
> > from SUMO and adopt the following conventions:
> >
> > 1. The word 'set' without any other qualifiers means the mathematical
> > notion of set.
CM> Sounds good.
I am happy to stop on a note of agreement.
John Sowa