SUO: Re: Conformance
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
JS = John Sowa
MW = Matthew West
PH = Pat Hayes
JS: I believe that Pat's concluding paragraph should be addressed, and one way
to start is to begin with at least two examples: one that conforms to SUMO,
and another that does not. Examples are often the best means of forcing such
airy discussions to get down to earth and say something sensible:
JS, citing PH:
| None of this discussion makes any sense at all.
| Lets get concrete and then maybe we can make some
| progress. Suppose I write some code and I want to
| know if it conforms to the SUO standard. How exactly
| do I set about trying to find out? Or, if I claim that
| it does, how would someone prove me wrong? What kind of
| thing would constitute nonconformance? Don't answer in
| 'ontological' terms, ie by talking about 'using a concept';
| that isn't well-defined enough, since there is no way to
| even say what it means, in general, for a program to be
| 'using' a 'concept'.
Pat has just un-discovered the "pragmatic theory of meaning" (PTOM).
Halelujah! Fatted calf, your days are numbered. I intone the hymn:
| Consider what effects that might conceivably
| have practical bearings you conceive the
| objects of your conception to have. Then,
| your conception of those effects is the
| whole of your conception of the object.
|
| Charles Sanders Peirce, 'The Maxim of Pragmatism', CP 5.438
JS: I would also like to make some remarks about the following exchange:
JS, citing MW & PH:
MW: No, it is the axioms that define what the concepts mean,
or at least what rules/constraints need to be satisfied.
You cannot separate the strings from the axioms in which
the strings occur.
PH: Well, I tend to agree, in abstract terms; but again,
Adam's definition makes no reference to axioms. Maybe
it should. However, nothing in KIF says anything about
the relationship between axioms and rules/constraints.
There is no KIF syntax for even stating rules or
constraints.
JS: My recommendation is to distinguish the content of some statement from the way
that content is intended to be used. I suggest the term 'proposition' for the
semantic content of a statement in KIF, CGs, controlled English, or any other
suitable notation.
I have been conditioned to think of the 'proposition' as being
the abstract logical object that is denoted by an 'expression'
or a 'sentence'. It's been so long ago that I have forgotten
whether the conditioning was voluntary or not -- I just know
all sorts or people who insist on it still. If you use the
phrase "semantic content" in a way that comports with it
being "semantic of the referent kind", then I would be
able to reconcile the differences in these usages, and
that might bring me some mental harmony on that score.
JS: Then all of the following terms can be defined as propositions
that are indended to be used in one way or another:
JS: - An axiom is a proposition that is assumed to be true within
the scope of some theory.
Maybe, but sometimes an axiom is a proposition that defines an object,
for example, an algebra or a geometry.
JS: - A constraint is a proposition that is used to constrain something.
The word "constraint" is often used in database discussions in a way
that is very close to the way that mathematicians use the word "axiom".
Yes.
JS: - A rule is a proposition that contains an implication (if-then)
as its major Boolean connective.
This is a syntactic criterion, and it turns out to be not so fundamental,
as it fails of having the sorts of invariance properties that are needed.
Peirce had already criticized his predecessors on this score, in respect
of the spurious distinctions that they tried to make between categorical
propositions and hypothetical propositions.
JS: - An assertion is a proposition
that is asserted to be true in
the context under discussion.
This is circular, except insofar as it adverts to a context of discussion,
which is one of the many ways to bring interpreters or else sign relations
back into the context of discussion.
JS: KIF and related notations that are designed to express propositions
can also be used to express axioms, rules, constraints, and assertions.
JS: If it is important to distinguish the intended use of a proposition,
that information can be stated in a comment (for human consumption)
or in some appropriate metalanguage (for computer use).
Yes, the interpretive dimension is paramount.
Hmm, that sounds oddly familiar --
"the trail of the human serpent is over all"?
Jon Awbrey
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤