ONT Re: Class
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
LO = Leonid Ototsky
LO: Yes, but once more -- the 'duality principle' must
be taken into account when we speak about classes.
Moreover the 'dual calculuses' must be defined
for the both parts.
Leonid,
At this point I was just trying to accumulate a few items of
reference material in the archives for future use, as I have
detected in some of our other discussions that the semantics
of the word "class" is starting to drift yet again. I blame
a lot of that on the object-dis-oriented jargon that grew up --
well, that has not quite yet grown up -- in isolated regions
of software engineering, and that threatens to infect us all
with their pidgin influenza.
Anyway, I was trying record a few articles of widely
established standard usage that we will eventually
have to deal with one way or another before we can
pretend to anything like a "standard ontology".
If you have any glosses or lexicographic data
to add with respect to this "duality principle",
please feel free to patch them in.
For my part, I think that it would be a good idea to limit the
use of all words like "class", "collection", "set", and so on,
to extensional entities, and to use words more suggestive of
attributes, features, properties, qualities, and so on, for
intensional entities. This is the way that is was always
done, from the time of Leibniz on, and it allowed folks
like Peirce to run on two legs, both in-&-ex-tensively,
in almost all of his work. But that was before we had
this recent hundred-years' bout of reductionist fever.
Still, I fear that the symmetry you mention here must become
a bit broken up when we apply the magnetic field whose source
is our ultimate concern with realizability, that is, effective
reality, with respect to which computability is just one road
to runing the otherwise beautiful, all too beautiful balance
of the composition. I will attempt to explane this later.
Jon Awbrey
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤