SUO: Re: RE: Logic and Ontology
Matthew,
> MW: It only means what it says. You may not infer what is not stated
unless
> there are axioms that support that inference. In this case there are none.
Ok, fair enough. Can you (or anyone) help me figure out how this ~trouble~
relates to the SUMO ontology by using only the actual terms and axioms in
SUMO ?
You say:
(1) Being a member of a set is not something that changes over time.
(2) Possessing a property can change over time.
(3) This means that property possession is different from set membership.
But I don't see where this assertion is justified by the actual SUMO
ontology.
I can vary the color of my car over time just as easily by saying:
(<=> (time MyCar 03/13/2002) (property MyCar Red))
(<=> (time MyCar 03/14/2002) (property MyCar White))
(<=> (time MyCar 03/15/2002) (property MyCar Blue))
as I can vary it by saying:
(<=> (time MyCar 03/13/2002) (element MyCar RedThings))
(<=> (time MyCar 03/14/2002) (element MyCar WhiteThings))
(<=> (time MyCar 03/15/2002) (element MyCar BlueThings))
assuming of course that: (instance MyCar Physical); otherwise neither
property nor element may vary with time.
Where does this ~trouble~ actually show up in SUMO ?
Seth Russell
----- History -----
From: "West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE" <Matthew.R.West@IS.shell.com>
> > From: "West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE" <Matthew.R.West@IS.shell.com>
> >
> > > Being a member of a set is not something that changes over time.
> > > Possessing a property can change over time. This means that property
> > > possession is different from set membership.
> >
> > Well then, if those *are* our assumptions, then I agree with
> > you, we are in
> > big trouble. However, it seems to me, the trouble would not
> > just be with
> > properties vs membership, but would be with our foundational logical
> > primitives themselves. None of those, (and, or, not, =>, <=>, =), are
> > permitted to vary with time ... are they? I mean if (P ?x)
> > can vary with
> > time, then the law of the excluded middle, (or ( P ?x) (not (P ?x))),
> > would not always be true ...would it? Doesn't LEM always
> > need to be true
> > in FOPL? But I had though that when we had chosen to adopt
> > FOPL, we had
> > also chosen to be talking only of snapshots of reality and\or
> > to code all of
> > our assertions in timeless statements.
>
> MW: Quite a big assumption I think, for which I see no evidence as yet
> in the work going on here.
> >
> > For example
> > (<=> (red MyCar) (instance MyCar RedThings))
> > really means
> > (<=> (red-at-03.11.2000 MyCar) (instance-at-03.11.2000
> > MyCar RedThings))
>
> MW: Why? Where did the date magically appear from? Why didn't it mean
>
> (<=> (red MyCar-at-03.11.2000) (instance MyCar-at_03.11.2000 RedThings))
> ?
>
> MW: It only means what it says. You may not infer what is not stated
unless
> there are axioms that support that inference. In this case there are none.
> >
> > Which of my assumptions, or where is my reasoning, wrong now?
> >
> > Seth Russell
> >
> > > Matthew West
> > > Principal Consultant
> > > Shell Information Technology International Limited
> > > Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
> > >
> > > Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Other Tel: +44 7796 336538
> > > Email: matthew.r.west@is.shell.com
> > > Internet: http://www.shell.com
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Seth Russell [mailto:seth@robustai.net]
> > > > Sent: 08 March 2002 16:00
> > > > To: West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE; Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
> > > > Subject: Re: RE: Logic and Ontology
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Matthew
> > > >
> > > > Yes I still don't see it ....
> > > >
> > > > You seem to have chosen to assume that possessing a property
> > > > and being a
> > > > member of a set are actually fundamentally different. I
> > > > think they are
> > > > really quite the same thing; and the only difference is
> > > > whether you choose
> > > > to construct your reality on properties of objects or
> > > > memberships in sets.
> > > > My height is my height regardless of whether I measure it as
> > > > 5'11" or 180.34
> > > > cm. If I can convert back and forth between them with a
> > > > formula, what real
> > > > difference does it make?
> > > >
> > > > Seth Russell
> > > >
> > > > ----- in response to -----
> > > > From: "West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE" <Matthew.R.West@IS.shell.com>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > You have it but seem unable to see it.
> > > > >
> > > > > If possessing a property and being a member of a set
> > are different,
> > > > > but the same construct (predication) are used to
> > represent both of
> > > > > them, then when you see a predication how do you know
> > whether it is
> > > > > meant to represent something being a member of a set or
> > something
> > > > > possessing a property?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Matthew West
> > > > > Principal Consultant
> > > > > Shell Information Technology International Limited
> > > > > Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
> > > > >
> > > > > Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Other Tel: +44 7796 336538
> > > > > Email: matthew.r.west@is.shell.com
> > > > > Internet: http://www.shell.com
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Seth Russell [mailto:seth@robustai.net]
> > > > > > Sent: 06 March 2002 20:27
> > > > > > To: West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE;
> > Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
> > > > > > Subject: Re: RE: Logic and Ontology
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: "West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE"
> > <Matthew.R.West@is.shell.com>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > You have only shifted the problem. So now what is
> > the meaning
> > > > > > > of hasState with respect to the tuple <mycar, red>?
> > Is it the
> > > > > > > same as the meaning of instance with respect to the tuple
> > > > > > > <mycar, redThings>? And is that meaning set membership?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I guess I don't have a clue what this philosophical
> > > > > > broo-ha-ha is about. It
> > > > > > seems to me that something having a property just means that
> > > > > > there is some
> > > > > > binary function that returns 'True' if the property obtains
> > > > > > for the thing.
> > > > > > In a computer this binary function would be implemented by a
> > > > > > program that
> > > > > > could be run at any particular time on any particular object
> > > > > > (in the correct
> > > > > > domain) and would return a true\false result value. Being a
> > > > > > member of a set
> > > > > > is a mathematicians way of conceptualizing the same
> > > > process. The two
> > > > > > different views (and I agree that they are different) could
> > > > > > be related by
> > > > > > some formula .. say:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (<=> (red ?x) (instance ?x RedThings) )
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I made a somewhat more detailed picture of this in
> > the mentograph:
> > > > > > http://robustai.net/mentography/property_or_instance.gif
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What am I missing? What is the underlying ambiguity that
> > > > has not been
> > > > > > exposed here?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Seth Russell
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----in response to ---
> > > > > > > Matthew West
> > > > > > > Principal Consultant
> > > > > > > Shell Information Technology International Limited
> > > > > > > Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Other Tel: +44 7796 336538
> > > > > > > Email: matthew.r.west@is.shell.com
> > > > > > > Internet: http://www.shell.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > From: Seth Russell [mailto:seth@robustai.net]
> > > > > > > > Sent: 05 March 2002 17:56
> > > > > > > > To: West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE;
> > > > Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Logic and Ontology
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ok, I think I see what you mean. But we could have chosen
> > > > > > > > different KIF
> > > > > > > > predicates:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > (hasState mycar red)
> > > > > > > > or from the other perspective
> > > > > > > > (instance mycar RedThings)
> > > > > > > > and or if time is a problem
> > > > > > > > (hasStateTimed mycar red 'March5:12:02AM')
> > > > > > > > (instanceTimed mycar RedThings 'March3:12:03AM')
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So isn't the problem with the precision of the
> > predicate we
> > > > > > > > choose to use
> > > > > > > > and not with KIF predication itself? (Sorry I didn't take
> > > > > > > > the time to look
> > > > > > > > up actual sumo predicates.)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Seth Russell
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ----- in response to -----
> > > > > > > > From: "West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE"
> > > > <Matthew.R.West@IS.shell.com>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Dear Seth,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I am loath to try to descibe other peoples view of the
> > > > > > world. You
> > > > > > > > > almost innevitably misrepresent them. Still subject to
> > > > > > correction
> > > > > > > > > here goes.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If you have what I would call a "property" view rather
> > > > > > than a "set"
> > > > > > > > > view then you think that the properties that a
> > > > thing has change
> > > > > > > > > over time, and that the things that have the property
> > > > > > have changing
> > > > > > > > > membership. These properties therefore can't be
> > sets (whose
> > > > > > > > membership
> > > > > > > > > does not change) so when you say:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > (red mycar)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > you are not asserting set membership but something else.
> > > > > > > > Whatever that
> > > > > > > > > is is what predicate means for those with that
> > viewpoint.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > As a cross reference the 4D viewpoint would say that a
> > > > > > state of the
> > > > > > > > > car was red, and that red was the set of all states
> > > > > > that were red,
> > > > > > > > > past, present and future, so the membership is
> > > > > > unchanging, actually
> > > > > > > > > time is taken out of the equation, and red
> > really is a set.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Matthew West
> > > > > > > > > Principal Consultant
> > > > > > > > > Shell Information Technology International Limited
> > > > > > > > > Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Other Tel: +44 7796 336538
> > > > > > > > > Email: matthew.r.west@is.shell.com
> > > > > > > > > Internet: http://www.shell.com
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > > From: Seth Russell [mailto:seth@robustai.net]
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: 05 March 2002 16:54
> > > > > > > > > > To: West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE;
> > > > > > Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Logic and Ontology
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > From: "West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE"
> > > > > > <Matthew.R.West@is.shell.com>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > The bottom line here as far as I can see is that
> > > > > > without stating
> > > > > > > > > > > a particular meaning for predication, KIF
> > is ambiguous.
> > > > > > > > Or perhaps
> > > > > > > > > > > I should say that when you use KIF, you
> > need to state
> > > > > > > > the meaning
> > > > > > > > > > > of predication you are using.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Could you provide us with a tangible example
> > > > giving differing
> > > > > > > > > > meanings of
> > > > > > > > > > predication?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Seth Russell
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>