Re: SUO: Re: IFF Comments Requested
Josiane wrote:
> Nice to answer me, but I am not sure to understand what you are
> referring to with the terminology ' first order logic and model theory' ?
> are you referring to the different indications you gave in your preceding
> mails about the set/class distinctions,
Yes, now that I look back, pretty much, though the point there was to lay
out the standard first-order approach to *sorted* logic. I can also
recommend John Sowa's overview of basic mathematical logic, which he
refers to in his respose this morning. Also any of several standard
references, notably: H. Enderton, A Mathematical Introduction to Logic;
E. Mendelson, Introduction to Mathematical Logic; and G. Hunter, Metalogic.
> and that I had commented?
Sorry I didn't reply to your one question in that post. You had asked
about the word "parens": It's just an abbreviation for "parentheses".
> In this
> case it would be easy for me to explain what I understood, viz how to use
> some of the elements or functions to modelize several accounts and notably
> what I called 'locations' in my verbal protocol analysis.
> and I would be very glad to have your comments.
I'd be happy to see it -- though my interest is not so much in the
specific content of your work (interesting as I'm sure it is!) but in any
*shortcomings* of the first-order framework that you believe are addressed
by IFF. I am at this point completely unconvinced that IFF offers any
insight or utility over first-order logic vis-a-vis building ontologies
(or even building the theoretical underpinnings of ontology generally), so
would interested in seeing any evidence to the contrary.
-chris
--
/\ ASCII ribbon | Chris Menzel -- http://philebus.tamu.edu/~cmenzel
\/ campaign | Philosophy Dept, Texas A&M University
/\ against | College Station, TX 77843-4237
/ \ HTML email | voice: 979.845-5660 fax: 979.845.0458