Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: Re[2]: SUO: Doctrine Of Individuals

Leonid,
 
See my message where I commented on the Heraclitus distinction. In the Heraclitus formal context (the mathematical context from Formal Concept Analysis)
  • Heraclitis = (Entity, Class, instance-of),
where Entity is the disjoint union
  • Entity = Individual + Class,
a class can appear as either a "formal object" (1st argument of instance-of) or a "formal attribute" (2nd argument of instance-of).
 
For example, if the term "Triangle" denotes the class of triangles, then the triangle, say "Triangle#123", that I have drawn on my paper, and the shape, say "Shape#345", of the flat iron building in New York are two instances of "Triangle"
(instance-of Triangle#123 Triangle) and (instance-of Shape#345 Triangle),
whereas "Triangle" is an instance of the class "GeometricShape"
(instance-of Triangle GeometricShape).
Robert E. Kent
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 7:38 PM
Subject: Re[2]: SUO: Doctrine Of Individuals


Adam,

Thursday, November 30, 2000, 6:35:54 AM, you wrote:

AP>    I think that we need two disjoint concepts where one could be called
AP> [class | collection | set | type] and another could be called [instance |
AP> individual | member].

In the IIDEAS project - www.iso18876.org (and in my repository too) a
member of a class can be a class too .


Best regards,
 Leonid                            mailto:leo@mmk.ru